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

Swearing in Posts

andrew

I just saw a thread in AH in which a poster received an infraction (Red Card) for swearing (specifically, using the word c**t, spelled cnut, in this post). I was wondering whether this is a new policy? Or has it always been policy, just not enforced? I've never seen someone infracted for using a swear word before, even when they circumvent the word filter, and it seems a little harsh.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

GLaDOS

I imagine it was for the aggressive nature of the post aimed directly at a specific person rather than just the swearing

Zaph

His infraction if a direct consequence of this notice, which has been stickied at the top of AH.

andrew

Ah I see, the reason given in the infraction was swearing you see, hence the confusion. Fair enough I suppose.

That_Guy

FUCK.

That is all.

DeVore

That guy....Do you really think that that is the same thing?? I can only presume you are daring us to either infract you, which would be patently silly, or be exposed as hypocrites or something. Tell you what, you go right on ahead and tell me to go fnck myself and we can test this properly

We have, and have always had, a civility requirement on this site. It's a subjective judgment call. Deal with it.

DeV.

My name is URL

Would saying the same thing with not-so colorful language be acceptable?

That_Guy

DeVore wrote: »

That guy....Do you really think that that is the same thing?? I can only presume you are daring us to either infract you, which would be patently silly, or be exposed as hypocrites or something. Tell you what, you go right on ahead and tell me to go fnck myself and we can test this properly

We have, and have always had, a civility requirement on this site. It's a subjective judgment call. Deal with it.

DeV.

If I'm being truly honest, I had been drinking and thought this was After Hours.

Is it alright to tell someone to go fork themselves? Or is that a step over the line?

Wibbs

That_Guy wrote: »

Is it alright to tell someone to go fork themselves? Or is that a step over the line?

Well if someone told you to go fork yourself, would you think they were being a dick? There's your line pretty much.

P. Breathnach

That_Guy wrote: »

If I'm being truly honest, I had been drinking ....

This board would work a whole lot better if a way could be found of breathalysing people at their keyboards.

dr.bollocko

P. Breathnach wrote: »

This board would work a whole lot better if a way could be found of breathalysing people at their keyboards.

I'd never be able to moderate again if that happened.

Sarky

All my best moderation is done while drunk!

ReginaII

It's interesting to note that there is now, apparently, no shame or reluctance to admit that one is habitually drunk. Indeed, at times it seems to be a claim which some think is something to be proud of and brag about.

While boards has been upfront for a long time about the fact that it is more akin to a dictatorship than a democracy, where members have no rights at all and are at the whim of the moderators etc. It now seems that ordinary members are also at the whim of drunken moderators etc, also.

So much for the vetting process of choosing moderators.

seamus

ReginaII wrote: »

So much for the vetting process of choosing moderators.

Because people who drink are morally corrupt?

P. Breathnach

I think, ReginaII, that all you can really conclude is that some moderators like to have a laugh at some things.

While I believe that posting-while-drunk can lead to some problems, my proposal had to be tongue-in-cheek, for how could it reasonably be otherwise? And some people responded to the humour that I intended.

Oryx

ReginaII what rights do you think regular posters should have that they are being deprived of right now?

Wibbs

+1 an actual outline of problems would be nice. Thought out solutions would be even better.

DeVore

My name is URL wrote: »

Would saying the same thing with not-so colorful language be acceptable?

yes, if its civil, yes... i have no problem with differences of opinion.

DeV.

ReginaII

seamus wrote: »

Because people who drink are morally corrupt?

People who drink does not equate to moderators who are drunk. Are you able to distinguish between someone who drinks, and someone who is drunk?

It’s not a question of morals, its a question of judgement and ability, and its not fair on members to be moderated by someone who is drunk.

It’s not, in any case, the fault of the moderator, but the fault of the managers if they allow drunk moderators to operate here.

Oryx wrote: »

ReginaII what rights do you think regular posters should have that they are being deprived of right now?

I think the right to be moderated by someone who is not drunk would be good.

But it’s important to realise that members of this site have no rights. The site is not a democracy and the managers of the site have complete carte blanche to act and behave any way they see fit, and members have no rights whatever.

Maybe that’s how a message boards site has to operate, but to pretend members have any rights is a pretence.

Insect Overlord

ReginaII wrote: »

but to pretend members have any rights is a pretence.

andrew

On a completely unrelated note, holy christ an unfollow thread button! Sweeeeeeet.

Darragh

ReginaII wrote: »

it’s important to realise that members of this site have no rights. The site is not a democracy and the managers of the site have complete carte blanche to act and behave any way they see fit, and members have no rights whatever.

Maybe that’s how a message boards site has to operate, but to pretend members have any rights is a pretence.

Hey ReginaII, I'm going to have to step in here and ask you what rights members don't have. Genuinely curious here.

seamus

ReginaII wrote: »

People who drink does not equate to moderators who are drunk. Are you able to distinguish between someone who drinks, and someone who is drunk?

Depends on your definition of "drunk". Someone who has been influenced by alcohol, regardless of whether or not they appear to be falling about the place, is "drunk". Moderating isn't like driving heavy machinery or running a country. Whatever a moderator does, can be undone. And any "wrongs" can also be undone.
In my mind, if you're capable of typing a coherent sentence on the screen and clicking the moderation buttons, then you're probably not too drunk to moderate.

I think the right to be moderated by someone who is not drunk would be good.

I think what you mean is that they have the right to be treated fairly and by someone who is of a sound mind. Drunkenness doesn't necessarily mean that someone is not of a sound mind, and equally a moderator being drunk does not mean that they will inherently be unfair on posters. To say that drinking is the cause of unfair moderator actions would in itself be unfair and is sensationalising something which has little or no impact in reality.

Moderators are still answerable for all their actions, drunk or sober, and moderators have in the past been reprimanded for their actions while drunk. The damage they can do is limited and certainly hasn't resulted in anybody dying thus far, therefore I don't see why there's a need to demonise it. Having a drink or two is normal part of many people's day - especially on the weekend, it's a part of unwinding. And if someone's idea of unwinding is having a few glasses of wine and surfing boards, then what's the big deal if they moderate at the same time?

Oryx

Regina, You didnt answer the question. Of course members have rights. The right to post. The right to air views. The right to expect civil discussion. The rules around here create an environment where you can exercise those rights. So where do you feel the rules infringe them? When you cant swear?

testicle

What about moderators who drink in moderation? Should that be allowed?

Sarky

There's a difference between being drunk and being stupid. Untwist those knickers.

DeVore

We do ask our moderators not to moderate if excessively drunk but I'd be a h,y,p,o,c,r,i,t,e** if I said I didnt occasionally admin stuff when I'm drunk too. Sometimes to comic effect, but by and large I also censor myself from adminning when drunk because I dont think I make good judgements at that point.
I do think you are being a bit "precious" though, Regina. I'm not entirely sure what your objection is to be honest.

Yes, we are a dictatorship but thats slowly changing into a bit more of a "court, with a king" approach. Personally, I would love if we could turn this into a real democracy but there are two problems with that:
1. many many people are stupid/ill-informed about the genuinely best way to run a community.
2. The law still holds the directors of the company responsible for its actions and while we have fairly brass balls, I'm probably the only one who would go to jail willingly. I'm just a bit of a trouble maker at heart

Ultimately though, we ARE subject to democracy, you vote with that little red X, top right.

DeV.
** Some may remember that BossArky incident

Wibbs

ReginaII wrote: »

It’s not, in any case, the fault of the moderator, but the fault of the managers if they allow drunk moderators to operate here.

OK for the sake of argument, lets say you're right. How do you propose to change that?

But it’s important to realise that members of this site have no rights. The site is not a democracy and the managers of the site have complete carte blanche to act and behave any way they see fit, and members have no rights whatever.

Maybe that’s how a message boards site has to operate, but to pretend members have any rights is a pretence.

Well they have the right to stand up and call shenanigans on something they think is wrong or could be improved. They exercise that right. I've done in the past. You're doing so now. If you propose a workable solution(important bit there) and others agree chances are it will be at least listened to and looked at. If it's a good solution then chances are also good it will be looked at with a view to change. I've seen it happen. Now people being people politics can come into it and Ive seen that happen too, but all in all its pretty rare considering the size of the place.

The thing is having a workable solution. Too often its "this X is crap" with no constructive suggestions forthcoming to make X less crap. That gets nothing done.

The other aspect in all this is that a lot of people, I would say most actually like and actively seek out guidelines and yes control and will happily abdicate responsibility for that to others. IMHO the very success of this website goes a long way to proving that. If it was an anything goes, say what you like site, I strongly suspect it wouldnt be where it is today. Actually I'd guarantee it. Of the ones who don't. IME most are the "I just want to see it burn" but from a safe distance and anonymously types. Much rarer are the those who may well show up with a lighted match but at least have a set of plans to rebuild things better from the ashes.

AckwelFoley

DeVore wrote: »

That guy....Do you really think that that is the same thing?? I can only presume you are daring us to either infract you, which would be patently silly, or be exposed as hypocrites or something. Tell you what, you go right on ahead and tell me to go fnck myself and we can test this properly

We have, and have always had, a civility requirement on this site. It's a subjective judgment call. Deal with it.

DeV.

Ah go fuc... never mind

As said earlier,the word **** or cnut is quite regularly used. Its the manner in which it was used that caused the problem for genericguy..

You could start splitting hairs and say that cnut is circumventing the swear filter, but to be fair, i rarely see that enforcedin AH. So in effect, its because of the calling someone a "cnut" celibrity or not, that caused the infraction, as opposed, i bought a new soft top convertable car and as i left the garage with my top down i drove it straight into the back of a slurry spreader..aint that a cnut?

As for having "rights"

Boards is like a house party with an open invite.. you're welcome to come in and stay as long as you like once you obey the house rules,most of therules are there for a reason and not for amusement of the owners, if you start shouting slanderous words out the front window at passers by, if you start fighting and make it an awkward place for the other party goers the the owner of the house gets in bother and eventually there is a risk of the owner getting pissed of and not bothering having any more house parties..it annoys the neighbouothrs and devalues you house - otherwise you have all the rights afforded to you that you came in with, the right to enjoy the atmosphere of the party, the right to engage in thoughtful debate, the right be entertained, the right to make friends, the right to flirt with ladies.. ormen if thats your persuasion...

Plenty of rights, a few house rules.. no big deal

ReginaII

DeVore wrote: »

I do think you are being a bit "precious" though, Regina. I'm not entirely sure what your objection is to be honest.

Yes, we are a dictatorship but thats slowly changing into a bit more of a "court, with a king" approach. Personally, I would love if we could turn this into a real democracy but there are two problems with that:
1. many many people are stupid/ill-informed about the genuinely best way to run a community.
2. The law still holds the directors of the company responsible for its actions and while we have fairly brass balls, I'm probably the only one who would go to jail willingly. I'm just a bit of a trouble maker at heart

Ultimately though, we ARE subject to democracy, you vote with that little red X, top right.

DeV.
** Some may remember that BossArky incident

I'm not sure if one can turn a boards type forum into a democracy. Ultimately, someone has to make a decision and that has to be the managers. My point is only that it's probably not possible to run a site like this in any other way.

Magenta

ReginaII wrote: »

I'm not sure if one can turn a boards type forum into a democracy. Ultimately, someone has to make a decision and that has to be the managers. My point is only that it's probably not possible to run a site like this in any other way.

You still haven't answered the other posters' questions of how you have come to the conclusion that the posters here have no rights.