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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

A discussion on the rules.

1…3031333536…89

Comments

  • #962
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    The rule is logical and consistent. It just doesn't have an ideological basis, and that's actually what you are looking for.
    Permabear wrote:
    Indeed. Notice how the rationale shifts from moderator to moderator and from day to day.

    We each have our own reasons for supporting the rule, certainly. The rationale for not having the rule seems to remain the same, though - that it offends a small group of posters' ideological positions.

    That's an inadequate basis for repeal, I'm afraid.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #963
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Given the level of sneering and sniping you've been using, the fact that this has been allowed go on for the last few pages rather gives the lie to that.


  • #964
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Nodin wrote: »
    Given the level of sneering and sniping you've been using, the fact that this has been allowed go on for the last few pages rather gives the lie to that.

    Allowed go on? How privileged we are that a discussion of the rule about using the word scumbag has been allowed to take place in the thread on discussing the rules. Gracious me!
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The rule is logical and consistent.

    Saying it is doesn't make it so. Certainly it is consistently applied to all mentions of the word scumbag, just like a mod could consistently pick on one poster. Actually scratch that it is not consistently applied. It is also not logical to ban a word (for whatever of the many changing reasons you can put in here) as you have sufficiently robust rules to tackle 'lowering the tone', 'trolling', 'civility', 'thread derailment', 'one word response', 'inappropriate language' already in place which you can apply to problem instances of scumbag, or toerag or vermin.
    It just doesn't have an ideological basis, and that's actually what you are looking for.

    No it is not. It is about the need for the rule, I don't think it is necessary as other rules are sufficient (see point above). Even if you deem it necessary then it becomes about the logic and consistency of such a rule. A ban on the sale of Lady Chatterley's Lover could be consistently applied but that's still selective (discriminating against that particular book) so it isn't generally consistent especially if they have no general ban on erotic literature - and if they had a general ban (which is where an ideological position would come in) then such a book would be covered under it, and wouldn't need it's own rule. A ban doesn't become any more acceptable or logical because Lady Chatterley's Lover is the most popular book in this category.
    We each have our own reasons for supporting the rule, certainly.

    And all of them are bogus.
    The rationale for not having the rule seems to remain the same, though - that it offends a small group of posters' ideological positions.

    That's an inadequate basis for repeal, I'm afraid.

    If that's all you've gleaned from this exchange, that we are offended by such a rule, then you haven't been engaging in this discussion. It is about the logic and consistency of the rule.


  • #965
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Laminations wrote: »
    Saying it is doesn't make it so. Certainly it is consistently applied to all mentions of the word scumbag, just like a mod could consistently pick on one poster. Actually scratch that it is not consistently applied. It is also not logical to ban a word (for whatever of the many changing reasons you can put in here) as you have sufficiently robust rules to tackle 'lowering the tone', 'trolling', 'civility', 'thread derailment', 'one word response', 'inappropriate language' already in place which you can apply to problem instances of scumbag, or toerag or vermin.

    We are just going round in circles now.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #966
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Laminations wrote: »
    Wanting logical and consistent forum rules is not an ideology.
    Laminations wrote: »
    If that's all you've gleaned from this exchange, that we are offended by such a rule, then you haven't been engaging in this discussion. It is about the logic and consistency of the rule.

    There may be disagreement on the logic of the rule, but I don't think it is inconsistent - the fact that it is applied consistently is the crux of the disagreement here, no?


  • Advertisement
  • #967
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Laminations wrote: »
    Allowed go on? How privileged we are that a discussion of the rule about using the word scumbag has been allowed to take place in the thread on discussing the rules. Gracious me!


    ................

    You'll be as good then, as to point out to me what the following has to do with discussion of said rule.....
    It must be rather convenient to be part of the "supervisory structure" that would allegedly prevent you from treating the forum as your own personal fiefdom. As the saying goes, there's nothing like being your own boss.

    amusedly,
    Permabear

    Then again, if you don't like to be sneered at from on high, you could always go off and frequent a lowbrow venue like After Hours or Dáil Éireann.

    patronizingly,
    Permabear
    Have you actually looked around here lately? The half-dozen or so excellent contributors are surrounded on all sides by people who can barely spell, let alone debate. You're not exactly presiding over the Oxford Union.
    But I'm also fully aware that any points raised in objection will be dismissed with the standard pontifical disdain that we've all come to expect, day in and day out.

    I await your reply with interest.


  • #968
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Perhaps, then, the rule should be restated as:
    We try to maintain a decent level of posts in the forum, and as a result we often penalise posts that seem to us to be any of the following: 'lowering the tone', 'trolling', 'civility', 'thread derailment', 'one word response', 'inappropriate language'.

    As a handy guide to the sort of thing that's meant by those terms, we find that the appearance of certain over-used emotive and pejorative terms in a post almost invariably indicates the post will fall foul of one of those categories. Amongst these terms are 'scumbag' and 'scum', but a full list is available in the Charter and we reserve the right to add or subtract from it.

    If you've been penalised under this clause, please note that you're not really being penalised for using the word 'scumbag' or 'scum' in itself (which would be censorship, and abhorrent), but for the reasons already given. You are free to continue using the word, but please note that its presence in a post almost inevitably does mean you're falling foul of one of those rules on post quality, even if you feel that your use of the term is entirely justified in context - most people feel that way about their posts, and it doesn't really serve as a good guide to quality.

    In turn, we ask posters please to report posts containing the term 'scumbag', because while we appreciate that 'post quality' is a subjective measure, we have found the occurrence of 'scumbag' to be a very good indicator that a post is failing to meet quality standards, and should certainly be reviewed by a mod in case it is doing so.

    Please do not report instances where the word is used as part of a quote from another source, since that obviously does not have the same implications.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #969
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    There may be disagreement on the logic of the rule, but I don't think it is inconsistent - the fact that it is applied consistently is the crux of the disagreement here, no?

    Nope, it is first the need for such a rule when you have a robust set of rules that give flexibility for context and intent. And then it is logic and consistency (maybe consistency is the wrong word though, maybe I mean generaliseability). The fact that it is applied consistently to the one word scumbag does not preclude it from being an illogical and discriminatory rule. If a rule is only applied to one word then it is not necessarily a consistent rule - and it has been designed so, in the same way as a poster consistently correcting spelling in posts may not be a consistent poster. It is not consistent as it doesn't care about other fashionable words, nor does it care about other derogatory or dehumanising words.


  • #970
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Nodin wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Permabear can answer for that, but it looks to me to be a separate discussion on the general standards of moderation and posting in the forum. Are we to be silent on criticisms of moderators or moderator structures?


  • #971
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Perhaps, then, the rule should be restated as:

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Nah, that's still pretty bad.
    we find that the appearance of certain over-used emotive and pejorative terms in a post almost invariably indicates the post will fall foul of one of those categories

    Why only certain? And your case rests on a presumption, that if the word scum is included then the content or message that surrounds it, or that will follow, or the direction the thread will take will be substandard. How about, and this is a novel idea, actually infracting and intervening when someone breaches the plethora of current rules irregardless of what single word they have used?

    You are trying to preemptively prevent trouble on threads by banning what you think are signposts to upcoming trouble. If you hold such a position you may as well ban mentions of the IRA, Israel-Palestine and the many other emotive issues where threads can go wrong. You shouldn't ban emotive words or issues, you should moderate the appropriateness of a post using current rules.


  • Advertisement
  • #972
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote: »
    Nah, that's still pretty bad.



    Why only certain? And your case rests on a presumption, that if the word scum is included then the content or message that surrounds it, or that will follow, or the direction the thread will take will be substandard. How about, and this is a novel idea, actually infracting and intervening when someone breaches the plethora of current rules irregardless of what single word they have used?

    Practically speaking, that's what's happening. The response to the use of 'scumbag' is not fixed, and depends on the quality of the post. Responses available range from a reminder that its use is discouraged to an infraction where it's part of a bad post.
    Laminations wrote: »
    You are trying to preemptively prevent trouble on threads by banning what you think are signposts to upcoming trouble. If you hold such a position you may as well ban mentions of the IRA, Israel-Palestine and the many other emotive issues where threads can go wrong. You shouldn't ban emotive words or issues, you should moderate the appropriateness of a post using current rules.

    That's what we do, though, albeit we do some of it in a way you disapprove of. And the reasons for distinguishing between a word like 'scumbag' and entire categories of political discussion should be obvious enough for it not to even have received a mention here.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #973
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Laminations wrote: »
    Permabear can answer for that, but it looks to me to be a separate discussion on the general standards of moderation and posting in the forum. Are we to be silent on criticisms of moderators or moderator structures?

    Not at all. However theres a difference between valid criticism and personal sniping for the sake of it. I suspect the issue of "scum" was just a vehicle for it and its arrival was inevitable.


  • #974
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    @ Scofflaw and mods - In your view, is the use of the word scum or scumbag always unwarranted?
    Is the inclusion of that word in a more substantive post always followed by substandard discussion?


  • #975
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Practically speaking, that's what's happening. The response to the use of 'scumbag' is not fixed, and depends on the quality of the post. Responses available range from a reminder that its use is discouraged to an infraction where it's part of a bad post.

    Why not just make it 'The response to the use of 'scumbag' is not fixed, and depends on the quality of the post'. That's a more general rule which can be applied to instances of a post inappropriately containing scumbag, or vermin, or asshat or whatever.


  • #976
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote: »
    @ Scofflaw and mods - In your view, is the use of the word scum or scumbag always unwarranted?

    Usually, yes.
    Laminations wrote: »
    Is the inclusion of that word in a more substantive post always followed by substandard discussion?

    At the time the word was banned, yes, pretty much always. Like I said, I don't know why that happened, but it did happen.
    Laminations wrote:
    Why not just make it 'The response to the use of 'scumbag' is not fixed, and depends on the quality of the post'. That's a more general rule which can be applied to instances of a post inappropriately containing scumbag, or vermin, or asshat or whatever.

    That rule exists, though. Scumbag just gets a special place by virtue of the observations already made, viz, that it usually indicates a sub-standard post, and was, before being banned, almost invariably followed by a chorus-line of substandard posts containing the same term.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #977
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #978
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #979
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I'm sure, at least, that nobody else is enjoying being confused half as much as you seem to be.

    Gents, no offence, but frankly you're not really arguing a case here any more, if you ever were - you are, as has been said, just sniping, sneering, and grousing around a rule you well know is not going to be changed on the basis of such tactics. This thread is for legitimate complaints, not drawn out displays of pique.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #980
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #981
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Usually always? Baffling.

    But I suppose I enjoy being confused too. Your replies Scofflaw have been as sniping as you accuse us of being.

    If scumbag is sometimes warranted then why is it completely banned? Why not use the current rules to moderate when it is thrown into a thread inappropriately? And if it was banned due to its prolific usage, seeing as it is quite rare now, or at least no more popular than any other word, will the ban be lifted? What's the duration of the ban? What will the posting landscape have to look like for the ban to be lifted? You've created a city of ember* with a ban like this. Conversely rules on posting standards need no expiry date. Substandard posts, whether containing scum or not are dealt with. If there's a posting chain A-B-C and a post contains an inflammatory kernel, you infract that post and/or replies based on posting standards. You don't ban the kernel especially if its inclusion is warranted in certain circumstances.

    *in that film the air is poisoned so they don't go outside, but if they never go outside how will they know when the air is not poisoned?


  • Advertisement
  • #982
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.


    I'm afraid the only one here who has been personalising the debate is, in fact, you.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80620585&postcount=967

    You have been answered, and are nolw attempting to draw out the "debate" (in fact a cover for continuing a long running personal grudge) to further snipe and make wild allegations.


  • #983
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Same as any word, really - if gets to the point of being spam, it may be banned, otherwise there's no particular policy on words, except obvious epithets and the childish red-rag terms like 'teabagger' for members/followers of the Tea Party and 'beards' for union officials.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    (This was in response to someone's question about words like gombeen.)

    I really do think we've reached that critical point on 'gombeen', 'crook', and 'goon' in particular.

    They are all fantastic words in themselves, ideally to be launched on the truly magnificent political scoundrels. But I do regret 'the greats' of political corruption being lumped in with merely riffraff & it does happen all too often.


  • #984
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Nodin wrote: »
    I'm afraid the only one here who has been personalising the debate is, in fact, you.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80620585&postcount=967

    Followed immediately by
    You have been answered, and are nolw attempting to draw out the "debate" (in fact a cover for continuing a long running personal grudge) to further snipe and make wild allegations.

    The ironing is delicious....


  • #985
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    later12 wrote: »
    (This was in response to someone's question about words like gombeen.)

    I really do think we've reached that critical point on 'gombeen', 'crook', and 'goon' in particular.

    They are all fantastic words in themselves, ideally to be launched on the truly magnificent political scoundrels. But I do regret 'the greats' of political corruption being lumped in with merely riffraff & it does happen all too often.

    And here come the word police to emphasise the absurdity of such a ban on well-worn words.


  • #986
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Laminations wrote: »
    If scumbag is sometimes warranted then why is it completely banned? Why not use the current rules to moderate when it is thrown into a thread inappropriately? And if it was banned due to its prolific usage, seeing as it is quite rare now, or at least no more popular than any other word, will the ban be lifted? What's the duration of the ban?

    I think it was SSR who outlined the context before, the punishment can go from an on thread warning to a yellow to a red to a ban, depends on the context. I can see that it might be tolerated in a case like a Brevik's, somebody posting it in the heat of the moment, a year later? Nope, because we've kind of established he's not a very nice individual at this stage! What's the point?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #987
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Laminations wrote: »


    The ironing is delicious....

    It's a fact that this is a long running personal grudge. It's been going for (roughly) 2 to 3 years and appears now and again in Feedback or here under some flag of convenience or other.


  • #988
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Laminations wrote: »
    And here come the word police to emphasise the absurdity of such a ban on well-worn words.
    In fairness, at least I'm being consistent.

    As Nodin said, most of the past few pages appear to have been personal grudge bluster, or at least as suggested by Permabear's stated position on such words.

    Using these repetitive terms on a recurring basis diminishes the need to say something original or engage rationally with the subject of discussion, which is presumably one of the main objectives of a political discussion forum.


  • #989
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    later12 wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    The linked post would appear to settle the question of whether there's a genuine issue here, at least for Permabear:
    Permabear wrote:
    This post has been deleted.

    I was too polite to mention Permabear's role in the banning of derogatory references to his personal sacred cows, but since it's been done, perhaps we can move on from what is rather visibly a time-wasting exercise.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #990
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,279 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    The last few pages was entertaining for passing about 20 minutes whilst waiting for the paint to dry. I honestly thought this thread was getting so many replies due to something important... back to the paint dry watching although I did have a laugh at level of reversing here :)


  • Advertisement
  • #991
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Laminations wrote: »
    Really why shouldnt a poster as part of their attack of the IRA and it's actions be allowed call them scumbags? Moderators aren't there to protect the sensitivities of IRA terrorist sympathisers.

    Nope we aren't, you are right there, we are there to try and ensure a reasonable debate can take place and not indulge personal preferences from either side. It was found the phrase was unhelpful because it resulted in tit for tat replies, the British army also getting called it, that isn't a debate or discussion, that's just throwing mud. The same applies to M.E. threads, libertarian, FF etc.

    There's enough mud thrown around here without bringing back another way of doing it. I don't know, the charter isn't that difficult, plenty manage to post away with no bother, without even reading the thing.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement