Banning of Principle of Q'uo

[Cairnsman]

Hey, HTB, CM and Pluggs. What're all whinging about? Gaz was given a fair trial.

I don't think it's the fairness of the trial that is being questioned so much but rather the judge and jury and their conflict of interest.
















Chick it out.

[stinger]

Hey, HTB, CM and Pluggs. What're all whinging about? Gaz was given a fair trial.

I don't think it's the fairness of the trial that is being questioned so much but rather the judge and jury and their conflict of interest.
















Chick it out.

rubbish...they are protecting posters from being abused....how the flower is that a conflict of interest???

[Bunk_Moreland]

BM have a white x on a black background as the hilarious image posted above

[HitTheBoundary]

Meanwhile, on the main "kid friendly" board we have one thread clearly referencing porn and another in which one of our players is called a retard..........

[Bunk_Moreland]

Meanwhile, on the main "kid friendly" board we have one thread clearly referencing porn .........

Balderdash

One reference was in reference to a famous murder, the other was a lighthearted joke. Saintspremiers muddied it with his unsubtle post, however the other two were a bit of fun.

But hey you and matrix are apparently the fun police, cant have a joke, or any fun whatsoever because you two have had a dummy spit because you disagree with the forum rules and the moderators.

Tell you what HTB, report both Bunk_Moreland's posts on that thread if you feel so strongly about it, have the courage of your convictions. Whatever the mods decide Bunk_Moreland WILL RESPECT AND ABIDE BY.

BM wont have a little tanty because BM can get his own way. This place is not a democracy, abide by the rules and the mods decisions and stop whinging.

Everyone wanted the rules to be enforced, as St.Byron pointed out everyone is in control of if they are banned or not. You get two warnings in a week, pull your head in. If you don't you get your whack.

So jump down off your high horse. The forum has been sterilized as was required. If you don't like the new rules and the policing of them, nobody forces anyone to post on this forum.

Just stop the incessant sooking, it is tedious and infantile, in BM's opinion of course.

[plugger66]

Meanwhile, on the main "kid friendly" board we have one thread clearly referencing porn .........

Balderdash

One reference was in reference to a famous murder, the other was a lighthearted joke. Saintspremiers muddied it with his unsubtle post, however the other two were a bit of fun.

But hey you and matrix are apparently the fun police, cant have a joke, or any fun whatsoever because you two have had a dummy spit because you disagree with the forum rules and the moderators.

Tell you what HTB, report both Bunk_Moreland's posts on that thread if you feel so strongly about it, have the courage of your convictions. Whatever the mods decide Bunk_Moreland WILL RESPECT AND ABIDE BY.

BM wont have a little tanty because BM can get his own way. This place is not a democracy, abide by the rules and the mods decisions and stop whinging.

Everyone wanted the rules to be enforced, as St.Byron pointed out everyone is in control of if they are banned or not. You get two warnings in a week, pull your head in. If you don't you get your whack.

So jump down off your high horse. The forum has been sterilized as was required. If you don't like the new rules and the policing of them, nobody forces anyone to post on this forum.

Just stop the incessant sooking, it is tedious and infantile, in BM's opinion of course.

Fair enough on the Holmes thread. Obviously light hearted but how do you feel about one of our players or any person being called a retard. not much fun in that.

[stinger]

\

Just stop the incessant sooking, it is tedious and infantile, in BM's opinion of course.

+1

[st.byron]

Fair enough on the Holmes thread. Obviously light hearted but how do you feel about one of our players or any person being called a retard. not much fun in that.

This issue was covered in detail about three months ago in this thread :

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=85790


Input was sought from all posters regarding abuse directed at our players, staff and anyone else not posting on the forum. The consensus opinion was it seemed to leave the status quo with regard to 3rd party abuse. The feeling was that any third party abuse that was really inappropriate, i.e calling CJ a retard, would be quickly and roundly condemned by other posters. Moderating 3rd party abuse would, IMO be impossible.

[plugger66]

Fair enough on the Holmes thread. Obviously light hearted but how do you feel about one of our players or any person being called a retard. not much fun in that.

This issue was covered in detail about three months ago in this thread :

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=85790


Input was sought from all posters regarding abuse directed at our players, staff and anyone else not posting on the forum. The consensus opinion was it seemed to leave the status quo with regard to 3rd party abuse. The feeling was that any third party abuse that was really inappropriate, i.e calling CJ a retard, would be quickly and roundly condemned by other posters. Moderating 3rd party abuse would, IMO be impossible.

Where is the line. Can someone say Lenny is spastic and thats ok because others will have a go at the poster. Its still written on the forum though. Everyone sees that a person thinks CJ is a retard and telling that poster he is an idiot only gets that poster a warning but doesnt stop it being seen by kids that it is ok to call others retards.

Even if for some reason you cant give warnings why cant you at least remove a post like that? All most of us want is common sense before any friggin rules.

[st.byron]

Input was sought from all posters regarding abuse directed at our players, staff and anyone else not posting on the forum. The consensus opinion was it seemed to leave the status quo with regard to 3rd party abuse. The feeling was that any third party abuse that was really inappropriate, i.e calling CJ a retard, would be quickly and roundly condemned by other posters. Moderating 3rd party abuse would, IMO be impossible.


Where is the line. Can someone say Lenny is spastic and thats ok because others will have a go at the poster. Its still written on the forum though. Everyone sees that a person thinks CJ is a retard and telling that poster he is an idiot only gets that poster a warning but doesnt stop it being seen by kids that it is ok to call others retards.

Even if for some reason you cant give warnings why cant you at least remove a post like that? All most of us want is common sense before any friggin rules.

Plugger, personally in this case re calling our players retards or spastics, I agree with you. The key point in your question though is, "where is the line?". Moderating 3rd party abuse would be nigh on impossible to do with any consistency I reckon. A total can of worms.
Re editing posts, the same thing applies. What one person finds offensive, another might not. The only way to do it would be to set a rule or guideline that says, "you can't post this or that" about a 3rd party. Which third parties would it apply to though?

Our players? Our coaching staff? Our admin and exec staff? People from other clubs? The AFL? The media? Where would the line be drawn and what would be ok to say and to not say? I don't think anyone on here wants more restriction about what you can say about James Hird or the AFL or the umpires or Malthouse etc. It's such a subjective area I reckon moderating it would be nigh on impossible.

This was all discussed in the thread linked to in my post above and the consensus was not so much a strong vote to leave it as is, rather there was a lack of genuine support to change it.

If that needs to re-visited, then so be it.

[plugger66]

Input was sought from all posters regarding abuse directed at our players, staff and anyone else not posting on the forum. The consensus opinion was it seemed to leave the status quo with regard to 3rd party abuse. The feeling was that any third party abuse that was really inappropriate, i.e calling CJ a retard, would be quickly and roundly condemned by other posters. Moderating 3rd party abuse would, IMO be impossible.


Where is the line. Can someone say Lenny is spastic and thats ok because others will have a go at the poster. Its still written on the forum though. Everyone sees that a person thinks CJ is a retard and telling that poster he is an idiot only gets that poster a warning but doesnt stop it being seen by kids that it is ok to call others retards.

Even if for some reason you cant give warnings why cant you at least remove a post like that? All most of us want is common sense before any friggin rules.

Plugger, personally in this case re calling our players retards or spastics, I agree with you. The key point in your question though is, "where is the line?". Moderating 3rd party abuse would be nigh on impossible to do with any consistency I reckon. A total can of worms.
Re editing posts, the same thing applies. What one person finds offensive, another might not. The only way to do it would be to set a rule or guideline that says, "you can't post this or that" about a 3rd party. Which third parties would it apply to though?

Our players? Our coaching staff? Our admin and exec staff? People from other clubs? The AFL? The media? Where would the line be drawn and what would be ok to say and to not say? I don't think anyone on here wants more restriction about what you can say about James Hird or the AFL or the umpires or Malthouse etc. It's such a subjective area I reckon moderating it would be nigh on impossible.

This was all discussed in the thread linked to in my post above and the consensus was not so much a strong vote to leave it as is, rather there was a lack of genuine support to change it.

If that needs to re-visited, then so be it.

Anything is subjective though even baiting and such but mods have to make decisions on things that may or may not be popular. The second warning Gaz got was for third party abuse in the mods opinion but im sure others just saw it as a normal everyday post when you dont agree with anyone. All this that i am saying is only my opinion and many others may disagree so I dont want it to be revisited. As ive said before all i want is common sense just as when I was banned the last time. got 3 warnings whilst I was asleep. I would suggest common sense wasnt used there as i had no hope, as mods have suggested, of improving my behaviour. Common sens should be the number one rule in moderating anything again IMO of course.

[Cairnsman]

Redeemer calling CJ a retard is baiting because he knows many take umbrage. ..get him on a technicality Byron...use some of your grey area power or common sense as P66 calls it.

[GrumpyOne]

Plugger, personally in this case re calling our players retards or spastics, I agree with you. The key point in your question though is, "where is the line?". Moderating 3rd party abuse would be nigh on impossible to do with any consistency I reckon. A total can of worms.

Hmmm....

You seem to have no trouble with interpretation in taking on POQ?

Now that this place has been sanitised within an inch of its life, it is time you took on the usage of disgusting terms such as retard and spastic. Not only are they offensive to the person being called that, they are more offensive to persons with a disability that have had to endure those sort of taunts all their lives.

A total can of worms, definitely not. Just ban those two words to start with. They are offensive as calling Holmsey the N word.

[st.byron]

Anything is subjective though even baiting and such but mods have to make decisions on things that may or may not be popular. The second warning Gaz got was for third party abuse in the mods opinion but im sure others just saw it as a normal everyday post when you dont agree with anyone. All this that i am saying is only my opinion and many others may disagree so I dont want it to be revisited. As ive said before all i want is common sense just as when I was banned the last time. got 3 warnings whilst I was asleep. I would suggest common sense wasnt used there as i had no hope, as mods have suggested, of improving my behaviour. Common sens should be the number one rule in moderating anything again IMO of course.

Yep agree that pretty much anything has a subjective component to it.
Re POQ's second warning, borderline I agree, but still an abusive tone and part of an ongoing series of posts insulting and belittling the poster it was directed at. In some cases context and history are also relevant, not just the individual post on its' own.

I also agree with you about common sense and am doing my best to apply it in regard to moderating as I'm sure the other mods are too.

[st.byron]

Plugger, personally in this case re calling our players retards or spastics, I agree with you. The key point in your question though is, "where is the line?". Moderating 3rd party abuse would be nigh on impossible to do with any consistency I reckon. A total can of worms.

Hmmm....

You seem to have no trouble with interpretation in taking on POQ?

Now that this place has been sanitised within an inch of its life, it is time you took on the usage of disgusting terms such as retard and spastic. Not only are they offensive to the person being called that, they are more offensive to persons with a disability that have had to endure those sort of taunts all their lives.

A total can of worms, definitely not. Just ban those two words to start with. They are offensive as calling Holmsey the N word.

Re POQ, nope no trouble with identifying posts that were part of an ongoing series of jabs at a specific target clearly designed to insult and belittle and therefore acting accordingly.
GO, I agree with you in regard to those terms. It's not my personal call though. The thread was previously put up and there was a bit, but not a lot of clear support for changing the status quo. If it's enough of an issue for people then it can be changed.

[st.byron]

In case anyone wants to continue debating this......I have to go out now and wont be back until tomorrow. Not ignoring or running away......incredibly I do have a life outside SS.

[plugger66]

Anything is subjective though even baiting and such but mods have to make decisions on things that may or may not be popular. The second warning Gaz got was for third party abuse in the mods opinion but im sure others just saw it as a normal everyday post when you dont agree with anyone. All this that i am saying is only my opinion and many others may disagree so I dont want it to be revisited. As ive said before all i want is common sense just as when I was banned the last time. got 3 warnings whilst I was asleep. I would suggest common sense wasnt used there as i had no hope, as mods have suggested, of improving my behaviour. Common sens should be the number one rule in moderating anything again IMO of course.

Yep agree that pretty much anything has a subjective component to it.
Re POQ's second warning, borderline I agree, but still an abusive tone and part of an ongoing series of posts insulting and belittling the poster it was directed at. In some cases context and history are also relevant, not just the individual post on its' own.

I also agree with you about common sense and am doing my best to apply it in regard to moderating as I'm sure the other mods are too.

Not having a go at you or any of the mods SB. Really just having an interesting discussion on what is and isnt allowed. hope im not annoying you.

[HitTheBoundary]

But hey you and matrix are apparently the fun police, cant have a joke, or any fun whatsoever because you two have had a dummy spit because you disagree with the forum rules and the moderators.

I was wondering why someone would be so supportive of such a silly thread as the Holmes one...... so I went back and checked and most of the posts were by you, lol. Then your post made sense.

Tell you what HTB, report both Bunk_Moreland's posts on that thread if you feel so strongly about it, have the courage of your convictions. Whatever the mods decide Bunk_Moreland WILL RESPECT AND ABIDE BY.

I have no reason to report those posts, if you see my posting history you will see I have posted a lot in the JLH thread. Some of us like to post about women, and some like posting about male porn stars. Whatever floats your boat is none of my business.

Just stop the incessant sooking, it is tedious and infantile

Surely you intend this as ironic considering your Holmes posts, lol.

My reason for mentioning both the "John Holmes" thread and the "retard" thread was merely to point out that, IMHO, there just seems to be a strange mix of what is allowed and what isn't. That's all. The fact that you took it personally is not my problem....

I have also clearly stated previously that I prefer a loose interpretation of the rules. It's just the apparent inconsistency of application that I am questioning.
This is the Admin board - where bans are discussed. I have merely raised the latest ban for discussion, which in the most part has been informative and worthwhile, IMO.

[Cairnsman]

Plugger, personally in this case re calling our players retards or spastics, I agree with you. The key point in your question though is, "where is the line?". Moderating 3rd party abuse would be nigh on impossible to do with any consistency I reckon. A total can of worms.

Hmmm....

You seem to have no trouble with interpretation in taking on POQ?

Now that this place has been sanitised within an inch of its life, it is time you took on the usage of disgusting terms such as retard and spastic. Not only are they offensive to the person being called that, they are more offensive to persons with a disability that have had to endure those sort of taunts all their lives.

A total can of worms, definitely not. Just ban those two words to start with. They are offensive as calling Holmsey the N word.

Is it not fact that the current Mod team applied for the positions because they were sick of certain posting styles, does that not make them biased against the posters who's posting style they dislike?

Do the grey areas of the rules, some of which were specifically rushed in by BFUSA, facilitate the targeting of said posters labelled as the "toxic posters"

Ironically this thread is littered with said "Toxic Posters".

Inconsistency is probably more of a problem than it ever has been and the new cleansing program is killing the place IMO.

[plugger66]

Plugger, personally in this case re calling our players retards or spastics, I agree with you. The key point in your question though is, "where is the line?". Moderating 3rd party abuse would be nigh on impossible to do with any consistency I reckon. A total can of worms.

Hmmm....

You seem to have no trouble with interpretation in taking on POQ?

Now that this place has been sanitised within an inch of its life, it is time you took on the usage of disgusting terms such as retard and spastic. Not only are they offensive to the person being called that, they are more offensive to persons with a disability that have had to endure those sort of taunts all their lives.

A total can of worms, definitely not. Just ban those two words to start with. They are offensive as calling Holmsey the N word.

Is it not fact that the current Mod team applied for the positions because they were sick of certain posting styles, does that not make them biased against the posters who's posting style they dislike?

Do the grey areas of the rules, some of which were specifically rushed in by BFUSA, facilitate the targeting of said posters labelled as the "toxic posters"

Ironically this thread is littered with said "Toxic Posters".

Inconsistency is probably more of a problem than it ever has been and the new cleansing program is killing the place IMO.

At least those mods had a reason to apply then if true. Im unsure how else a mod could be picked. And the reason maybe it seems they are more inconsistant now is we finally have mods making decisions. We really havent had mods for about 2 years before that because they were driven out by people whinging about them and also one completely lost the plot.

[Bunk_Moreland]

But hey you and matrix are apparently the fun police, cant have a joke, or any fun whatsoever because you two have had a dummy spit because you disagree with the forum rules and the moderators.

I was wondering why someone would be so supportive of such a silly thread as the Holmes one...... so I went back and checked and most of the posts were by you, lol. Then your post made sense.

Tell you what HTB, report both Bunk_Moreland's posts on that thread if you feel so strongly about it, have the courage of your convictions. Whatever the mods decide Bunk_Moreland WILL RESPECT AND ABIDE BY.

I have no reason to report those posts, if you see my posting history you will see I have posted a lot in the JLH thread. Some of us like to post about women, and some like posting about male porn stars. Whatever floats your boat is none of my business.

Just stop the incessant sooking, it is tedious and infantile

Surely you intend this as ironic considering your Holmes posts, lol.

My reason for mentioning both the "John Holmes" thread and the "retard" thread was merely to point out that, IMHO, there just seems to be a strange mix of what is allowed and what isn't. That's all. The fact that you took it personally is not my problem....

I have also clearly stated previously that I prefer a loose interpretation of the rules. It's just the apparent inconsistency of application that I am questioning.
This is the Admin board - where bans are discussed. I have merely raised the latest ban for discussion, which in the most part has been informative and worthwhile, IMO.

As BM thought, no courage of your convictions. Report the posts otherwise you will be seen for what you are. Which is a showpony taking potshots from the sidelines.

And you are so smart to work out they were BM's post considering BM challenged you to report them.

Blowtorch to the belly and you show your true colours. Take them to the mods and let them decide.

If not get off your moralistic purile high horse

[Cairnsman]

Plugger, personally in this case re calling our players retards or spastics, I agree with you. The key point in your question though is, "where is the line?". Moderating 3rd party abuse would be nigh on impossible to do with any consistency I reckon. A total can of worms.

Hmmm....

You seem to have no trouble with interpretation in taking on POQ?

Now that this place has been sanitised within an inch of its life, it is time you took on the usage of disgusting terms such as retard and spastic. Not only are they offensive to the person being called that, they are more offensive to persons with a disability that have had to endure those sort of taunts all their lives.

A total can of worms, definitely not. Just ban those two words to start with. They are offensive as calling Holmsey the N word.

Is it not fact that the current Mod team applied for the positions because they were sick of certain posting styles, does that not make them biased against the posters who's posting style they dislike?

Do the grey areas of the rules, some of which were specifically rushed in by BFUSA, facilitate the targeting of said posters labelled as the "toxic posters"

Ironically this thread is littered with said "Toxic Posters".

Inconsistency is probably more of a problem than it ever has been and the new cleansing program is killing the place IMO.

At least those mods had a reason to apply then if true. Im unsure how else a mod could be picked. And the reason maybe it seems they are more inconsistant now is we finally have mods making decisions. We really havent had mods for about 2 years before that because they were driven out by people whinging about them and also one completely lost the plot.

They were picked based on the criteria set by one person, if you didn't fit neatly into how that person sees the world then you weren't suitable. It's how most regimes operate.

[GrumpyOne]

They were picked based on the criteria set by one person, if you didn't fit neatly into how that person sees the world then you weren't suitable. It's how most regimes operate.

This.

[plugger66]

They were picked based on the criteria set by one person, if you didn't fit neatly into how that person sees the world then you weren't suitable. It's how most regimes operate.

This.

So they should have been picked how?

[GrumpyOne]

They were picked based on the criteria set by one person, if you didn't fit neatly into how that person sees the world then you weren't suitable. It's how most regimes operate.

This.

So they should have been picked how?

Popular vote, but I know you will never accept that concept, so don't bother arguing.