Wolfe Tone wrote: I want boards to be known as a place where people can have their say.
Aidric wrote: I'm genuinely surprised that anyone who watched that McSavage interview came to the conclusion that his comments were made in spite or further an attack on the boards community. They were clearly made in jest as was obvious from the tone in which they were delivered.
Nodin wrote: » You seemed to be perfectly content to have abuse come from the interviewee.
Darragh wrote: » Should I have put up the video as is? No.
Was a thread full of insults and abuse for McSavage warranted? Actually in one sense, yes, members could have used that thread to give feedback, no matter how abusive to that interview. However, it's the precedent that set, as well as the abuse of other people in that thread that became the problem, not the thread itself.
Darragh wrote: » I don't think that AH thread should have been deleted
Darragh wrote: » I want Boards.ie to be the same. Useful for its members, with otherwise inaccessible people invited to come along and answer questions put to them. I want the people who use Boards.ie to find interesting information and to have what they care about discussed - and surely we can do that without profanity and abuse? Surely we don't have to offend people to make a point?
Nodin wrote: » ...it's the general principle it raises, rather than Savage specifically.....
oscarBravo wrote: » On general principle (in my opinion), the site-wide rule that forbids abuse towards another poster should be extended to forbid abuse towards third parties. And, in reply to the earlier question about the Politics forum, yes: I believe that should extend to politicians as well.
LoLth wrote: » example 1: informative but possibly a little (lot?) stale. example 2: more entertaining but offputting to read and while funny, wouldnt do much to recommend that I join the forum. example 3: less said the better. I would like to see boards at somewhere wavering between a point more laid back that 1 and more polite / less combative than example 2. to me, thats what a discussion forum should be.
AlmightyCushion wrote: » What concert was example 3 about again? :pac: If those three threads were posted in after hours assuming we decided not to move them the mod action would probably be: In example 3 thread would be deleted or at least those posts would be deleted if there was more non defamatory stuff in the thread. If the thread wasn't deleted, user 4's post would be fine but the personal details would be edited out. In example 2, user2, user 3 and 4 would get banned for abuse. Do you think that a thread like example 2 would really sit in after hours with no moderator action taken? Saying that, this would have been the action taken long before the celeb abuse rule would have come into place so I'm struggling to see what it really has to do with the thread.
LoLth wrote: » However, your examples of what the mod reactions to those samples would be goes to show that the proposed standard that Darragh mentioned is actually not that far beyond where we are. in fact, I would say that the vast majority of boards.ie users surpass that standard. Its a vocal minority that fall short and unfortunately outsiders looking in are more likely to notice these than they are to notice the majority of helpful, expressive and well considered posts. This vocal minority is already noticed/acted upon by the mods. if anything, it becoming boards policy would only help the mods perform the actions they already undertake without having to defend the forum charter each time. Instead its a commonly known boards policy that everyone is subject to and not jsut those that post in one forum or another. (with the exception of ranting and Raving, though thats still a bit iffy imho, especially the legal aspect.).
southsiderosie wrote: » OK, but then what constitutes abuse? Because, again, it seems pretty subjective. To go back to the Lenihan example, if I said "Brian Lenihan is a liar and an idiot, and he and his party should be drummed out of office forever", does that constitute abuse? What if I made that statement, and linked to articles where he said the IMF wasn't coming in (when they were checking into their hotels in Dublin) and that the budget was fine (when the figures were obviously fiction)? Then the latter part of that sentence would be an opinion based on an interpretation of actual facts.
While boards users may need to have some cop-on, I think I'd rather see on-thread moderation calling for people to tone it down, rather than blanket rules meant to govern civility, especially as the standards of civility vary widely between forums.
oscarBravo wrote: » There's already a rule in the Politics forum that you're not allowed to accuse someone of lying unless you can demonstrate they knew what they were saying was untrue. Also, saying that he and his party should be drummed out of office forever is an expression of opinion - it's a firmly-held view, but one expressed in a civil fashion. Describing him as an idiot is the only part of your example that could be considered abusive, and it's at the tipping point between opinion and abuse. That's the question: should we have a baseline standard of civility? I'm the wrong person to answer the question (although I have my opinions on the subject), because I'm genuinely bewildered that people feel the need to demand the right to offend people in a vitriolic and hateful manner. For me it's a bit like demanding the right to litter.
Wolfe Tone wrote: » oscarbravo I have often seen posts labeling not only individual politicians idiots but entire groups idiots in politics. They have never been punished. Do you think they should be? Or is that too far?
oscarBravo wrote: » Two things: first, I'm expressing my opinion about the quality of discourse I personally would like to see on this site. I think that, as long as the population of the site feel that they have a gods-given right to be vile and abusive towards other people, it's an exercise in futility punishing posters for describing people as idiots. Secondly, there's a difference between using a derogatory term to describe a group of people, and singling individuals out for hateful bile. If "idiot" was the most pejorative term ever used on this site, I don't think we'd be having this conversation.
I realise this is a big change for the site in some respects, but it's one that needs to happen. That's why we're having this debate in public. I realise too I can be shown a few thousand examples of where abuse has gone unchecked but that really does have to stop. Is there any case someone can make where we SHOULD allow abuse?
Darragh wrote: » And so it continues. Okay, so what is abuse? Well, I don't think that it's necessary to call someone - anyone - a c*nt. I don't think it's necessary to refer to someone, as in Snyper's examples earlier, saying "so and so is a bignose cnut" or "so and so is a wanker" when you're discussing them or work they did. I suppose in some ways it depends on the forum culture and the tone of the thread, but overall I don't think it adds anything to the conversation, or is necessary and/or more to the point, is something that someone would say to the person face to face. It's like commenting on the post, not the poster as per our site guidelines.Legal is a concern, yes, but not solely the primary one. Reputation is as big as abuse. Once again it comes down to what people want the site to be known for, what people want their membership to reflect and what people think of Boards.ie when they hear it. "That site where everyone just abuses everyone" is not particularly the reputation I want, but is, unfortunately, one of the reputations we have. I realise this is a big change for the site in some respects, but it's one that needs to happen. That's why we're having this debate in public. I realise too I can be shown a few thousand examples of where abuse has gone unchecked but that really does have to stop. Is there any case someone can make where we SHOULD allow abuse?
Wolfe Tone wrote: » Darragh just be honest and say it is about the advertising.
oscarBravo wrote: » If that's the level this discussion's going to be at, count me out.
TheZohan wrote: » A change that needs to happen? Says who? Look at the Feed Forward forum, a lot of it is change for the sake of change bull crap. The site is what it is and is growing, you don't need to meddle with this. I can recall a thread being deleted by you Darragh because a competitor of the company mentioned was in negotiations re: advertising. That's not to run the site, it's a bloody disgrace that the likes of this is going on behind the backs of users.
