• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Someone tell me this.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just want to say that I got my second warning from this forum today. I hope Martin got his second too otherwise there's double standards on display.
 
ruach said:
Of course there are double standards.
Click to expand...
In life there are always double standards, in every direction you look, and in general we're only interested in, and perhaps only notice, the ones that run contrary to the way we think.

I’ll have a go at explaining my position on this whole matter then leave this thread for sunnier climes.

Rules should be applied equally. If someone goes too far, the mods, and perhaps other posters, should tell them; whether they are initiating name-calling or responding in a way that merely fans the flames. Having said that, the level of our response to such behaviour has to factor in the members previous character; there is a difference between someone reacting out-of-character in response to a personal attack and someone with a track record of initiating slanging matches. That’s not double standards, it’s common sense.
People should be able to give their honest opinion, and feel this is a forum where you can challenge a person’s viewpoint and invoke debate. However, and this seems to be the crux of the matter, there is a difference between challenging a persons point of view and challenging their right to hold it; and an even bigger difference between either of those and personal attacks, either direct or veiled. This isn’t a case of following good netiquette, or subjugating yourself to forum rules designed by ‘The Man’ to infringe your right to speak your mind. The ability to debate an issue without resorting to personal attacks is a basic social skill that we should have all acquired by the time we are old enough to be let loose on the interweb.

As I’ve stated before in this thread, a number of posts I’ve seen on this forum say far more about the person making them than it does about the purported subject matter.

Regards,

K-S
 
Stewart said:
Just want to say that I got my second warning from this forum today. I hope Martin got his second too otherwise there's double standards on display.
Click to expand...
I have no intention of making my situation, regarding warnings I've received, public, but, just out of curiosity, what do you think I should have received that second warning for?
 
Kenny Shovel said:
In life there are always double standards, in every direction you look, and in general we're only interested in, and perhaps only notice, the ones that run contrary to the way we think.

I’ll have a go at explaining my position on this whole matter then leave this thread for sunnier climes.

Rules should be applied equally. If someone goes too far, the mods, and perhaps other posters, should tell them; whether they are initiating name-calling or responding in a way that merely fans the flames. Having said that, the level of our response to such behaviour has to factor in the members previous character; there is a difference between someone reacting out-of-character in response to a personal attack and someone with a track record of initiating slanging matches. That’s not double standards, it’s common sense.
People should be able to give their honest opinion, and feel this is a forum where you can challenge a person’s viewpoint and invoke debate. However, and this seems to be the crux of the matter, there is a difference between challenging a persons point of view and challenging their right to hold it; and an even bigger difference between either of those and personal attacks, either direct or veiled. This isn’t a case of following good netiquette, or subjugating yourself to forum rules designed by ‘The Man’ to infringe your right to speak your mind. The ability to debate an issue without resorting to personal attacks is a basic social skill that we should have all acquired by the time we are old enough to be let loose on the interweb.

As I’ve stated before in this thread, a number of posts I’ve seen on this forum say far more about the person making them than it does about the purported subject matter.

Regards,

K-S
Click to expand...

Very well said Kenny. I hope this answers your question Ya Krunk Floo and also yours Stewart.

In your case Stewart a warning was issued because you called Martin "A MOTHER FUCKER" and "A WHORE SON" these are both clearly out of order. There is no need for this sort of abuse to another member. Martin did call you a coward but as a response to your insults. Most people would have responded in a much harsher tone than his, but all he did was point out that it's very easy to post insults on a message board when you are thousands of miles apart. No warning is going to be issued to Martin for defending himself in the face of insults.

Krunk: There are no double standards in operation. We try to be FAIR. Clueless responded to your insult on another member. She was standing up to the insulting and hostile behaviour that goes on in this forum and indeed is the topic of this very thread. If you had not insulted somebody she would not have responded. We are not about to issue warnings for people defending others against harassment and insults. I see no insult by her. It's my hope that this thread has been an eye opener ( and i think it has ) and that the members of this forum will no longer tolerate hostile and insulting behaviour. No warning is going to be made for Clueless for sticking up for another member that has been insulted. Clueless is a good member who has never troubled anybody. She has done nothing wrong.
 
Pff, what a jib! This is so ridiculous! I was responding to Miss Shelly's attack on the people who post in the General Chat forum! So, of course its a case of double-standards.
 
Stewart said:
I got mine for namecalling. You called me a coward which is also namecalling.
Click to expand...

I think abusive namecalling is unacceptable. Coward is not abusive any more than calling someone a bore or a pedant is abusive. It's not something I would personally do though, if required I'd prefer to say that someone was acting like a coward, acting like a bore etc rather than namecall at all.

however, there is a important distinction to be made between namecalling and abusive namecalling.

Abusive namecalling should not be tolerated. light namecalling, although I think it's weak, is acceptable if not ideal most of the time.
 
Wabbit said:
In your case Stewart a warning was issued because you called Martin "A MOTHER FUCKER" and "A WHORE SON" these are both clearly out of order. There is no need for this sort of abuse to another member. Martin did call you a coward but as a response to your insults. Most people would have responded in a much harsher tone than his, but all he did was point out that it's very easy to post insults on a message board when you are thousands of miles apart. No warning is going to be issued to Martin for defending himself in the face of insults.
Click to expand...

Oh FFS :mad: When I called him a "Moederneuker :D" he actually responded with, and I paraphrase, "clever. lucky you included the smilie"

I edited the post immediately because I knew I was angry and changed it to a simple "go to hell" to which I was branded a coward. That's not defending himself. If it's okay to defend yourself in light of insults then the Hoerenjong insult should be allowed as a response to coward. No, if he was really nice he wouldn't have responded at all. He's just a man with a big pot of shit, happily stirring.

If you want to hand out warnings then ask me about my comments because your basing it on whispers since the original material is no longer there. If you don't properly investigate a complaint then I have no faith in your ability to moderate this forum.
 
RobertFKennedy said:
I think abusive namecalling is unacceptable. Coward is not abusive any more than calling someone a bore or a pedant is abusive. It's not something I would personally do though, if required I'd prefer to say that someone was acting like a coward, acting like a bore etc rather than namecall at all.

however, there is a important distinction to be made between namecalling and abusive namecalling.

Abusive namecalling should not be tolerated. light namecalling, although I think it's weak, is acceptable if not ideal most of the time.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between abusive and light? I missed it in your post.
 
Kenny Shovel said:
In life there are always double standards, in every direction you look, and in general we're only interested in, and perhaps only notice, the ones that run contrary to the way we think.

I’ll have a go at explaining my position on this whole matter then leave this thread for sunnier climes.

Rules should be applied equally. If someone goes too far, the mods, and perhaps other posters, should tell them; whether they are initiating name-calling or responding in a way that merely fans the flames. Having said that, the level of our response to such behaviour has to factor in the members previous character; there is a difference between someone reacting out-of-character in response to a personal attack and someone with a track record of initiating slanging matches. That’s not double standards, it’s common sense.
People should be able to give their honest opinion, and feel this is a forum where you can challenge a person’s viewpoint and invoke debate. However, and this seems to be the crux of the matter, there is a difference between challenging a persons point of view and challenging their right to hold it; and an even bigger difference between either of those and personal attacks, either direct or veiled. This isn’t a case of following good netiquette, or subjugating yourself to forum rules designed by ‘The Man’ to infringe your right to speak your mind. The ability to debate an issue without resorting to personal attacks is a basic social skill that we should have all acquired by the time we are old enough to be let loose on the interweb.

As I’ve stated before in this thread, a number of posts I’ve seen on this forum say far more about the person making them than it does about the purported subject matter.

Regards,

K-S
Click to expand...

A personal attack is different for different people; I for one, wouldn't be offended if someone called me a wanker, told I was an idiot for reading such and such, or wanting to kill my family...no one's life is in danger by saying these things either here or in person. It isn't clear on whose standards it is being judged.

Do people change? I'd like to think so. Instead of calling in 'the man' to fix our problems, let us fix them ourselves.

I'm not sure anyone can truthfully judge anyone elses intent. We can project ourselves into the the situation, but that isn't the same. I suppose that is my problem with this whole thing, I don't believe I can understand the depth of someone enough to punish them, while others can or pretend to.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
 
Nice to have met you all.
Have read all 29 pages and won't say another word.
Except that, for the future person who reads all 56 pages that will one day constitute this thread, it once ended here.
See you all, out and around in the jungle.
Peder
 
hi peder, i can't imagine what your thoughts must be of this forum having read all that, but just know that despite all the growing pains, we laugh a lot too.
see you around.
jenn
 
Stewart said:
Oh FFS :mad: When I called him a "Moederneuker :D" he actually responded with, and I paraphrase, "clever. lucky you included the smilie"

I edited the post immediately because I knew I was angry and changed it to a simple "go to hell" to which I was branded a coward. That's not defending himself. If it's okay to defend yourself in light of insults then the Hoerenjong insult should be allowed as a response to coward. No, if he was really nice he wouldn't have responded at all. He's just a man with a big pot of shit, happily stirring.
Click to expand...
Get your facts straight.

I never even saw the initial 'Motherfucker', smiley or nay; all I saw was the 'Go to hell', to which I responded "clever. lucky you included the smilie". I changed that, when you edited it to "No probs".

It was only three posts later that you yourself admitted to having used "Motherfucker" and "Son of a whore".

You got a warning. You deserved it. Deal with it.
 
Hi jenn,
Thanks for the reply.
My thoughts? Actually not many.
Everyone has so cleverly talked around what the problem is/was that I have almost no idea what anybody was talking about. :) But it doesn't sound much different than other unrestrained forums I have known which have included some real donnybrooks.
OTOH it sounds like not much self policing is used. On my side of the water, people are much more inclined to pipe up and say "Off topic" or "Take it to the Lobby" or "Don't hold back! Let us know your real feelings" when things get away from community standard. So I'm waiting to see how things work here.
I'm especially glad to hear that you laugh also; sometimes I just can't hold back my sense of humor, for better or for worse. :(
See you around,
Peder
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top