banning policy

[user 115627]

We've been over this many times, so I have nothing productive to add here that hasn't been said before. Except...

If you all elect me ALL president I'll build an IP wall to keep the trolls out.

...here's your hat, Mr. President.

 

[VanillaCreme]

The "no namecalling" one is easy, we're all in relative agreement on that. But the "no insults" rule, to me, I feel is a little more unclear since namecalling isn't the only way to insult someone.

That just sounds like wanting hand-holding. I'm sorry, but if someone needs to tell you (anyone) what an insult is, then they need to reconsider joining any moderated forum. It's not administrator's or moderator's job to raise anyone. If admin/mod needs to tell anyone exactly what the definition of something is, they need to realize that's not the job of an admin or mod.

"No insults" would be the rule. And already, you're butting heads against that. So, imagine a list where we get people, "Well this is this, and that is that..." It's not that unclear. If someone wants their hand to be held on how to behave, the internet isn't exactly the best place for them to find that guidance.

Also, you're not wasting your breath. We do listen to requests and do what we can to put forth answers to those requests.

 

[Bubblebeam]

That just sounds like wanting hand-holding. I'm sorry, but if someone needs to tell you (anyone) what an insult is, then they need to reconsider joining any moderated forum. It's not administrator's or moderator's job to raise anyone. If admin/mod needs to tell anyone exactly what the definition of something is, they need to realize that's not the job of an admin or mod.

"No insults" would be the rule. And already, you're butting heads against that. So, imagine a list where we get people, "Well this is this, and that is that..." It's not that unclear. If someone wants their hand to be held on how to behave, the internet isn't exactly the best place for them to find that guidance.

Also, you're not wasting your breath. We do listen to requests and do what we can to put forth answers to those requests.

I could be mistaken but I read the post as making the point of, there are simply grey areas. Particularly with text, one could read a sentence and feel a vibe of it being insulting in nature, but it wasn't intended that way. Happens all the time with text communication. I've had some big upsets with my family living abroad because one or the other misunderstands how a text sentence was intended, and that's in spite of us all being careful with our wording and knowing each other for 20+ years. That's not even mentioning how easily it is also done in real life. Think relationships, in particular.

Many forums do not consider this and become ban-happy thinking, unrealistically, that people can be that heavily controlled and justifiably so because of a bullet point list that they claim is black and white but simply never can be. That goes for several of the common "rules" throughout forums in my opinion, but that's a whole other subject.

Just some food for thought, really.

 

[EveWasFramed]

That just sounds like wanting hand-holding. I'm sorry, but if someone needs to tell you (anyone) what an insult is, then they need to reconsider joining any moderated forum. It's not administrator's or moderator's job to raise anyone. If admin/mod needs to tell anyone exactly what the definition of something is, they need to realize that's not the job of an admin or mod.

"No insults" would be the rule. And already, you're butting heads against that. So, imagine a list where we get people, "Well this is this, and that is that..." It's not that unclear. If someone wants their hand to be held on how to behave, the internet isn't exactly the best place for them to find that guidance.

Also, you're not wasting your breath. We do listen to requests and do what we can to put forth answers to those requests.

I could be mistaken but I read the post as making the point of, there are simply grey areas. Particularly with text, one could read a sentence and feel a vibe of it being insulting in nature, but it wasn't intended that way. Happens all the time with text communication. I've had some big upsets with my family living abroad because one or the other misunderstands how a text sentence was intended, and that's in spite of us all being careful with our wording and knowing each other for 20+ years. That's not even mentioning how easily it is also done in real life. Think relationships, in particular.

Many forums do not consider this and become ban-happy thinking, unrealistically, that people can be that heavily controlled and justifiably so because of a bullet point list that they claim is black and white but simply never can be. That goes for several of the common "rules" throughout forums in my opinion, but that's a whole other subject.

Just some food for thought, really.

Agreed - "insult" can sometimes be a gray area. The mods generally do a good job at giving warnings before banning someone for insults (unless they're REALLY bad or have already been warned before). I think the mods do a good job at interpreting what's an insult and what isn't and they give the offender a warning. I do not believe that's a bad way to moderate. Not against a rules list per se, but the one you agree to when you sign up is in place. I think the gray areas are what sets some folks off. As long as humans are interpreting the rules, there will never be a time that everyone is going to agree about what the rules might mean.

 

[TheRealCallie]

Yeah, some people seem to think it's an insult when someone doesn't agree with them. Or thinks in a different way or any ideology that they don't agree with. Some people are insulted simply by reading something that a person they don't like posted.

Just because a person chooses to be insulted doesn't mean they actually were....

 

[M_also_lonely]

Agreed - "insult" can sometimes be a gray area. The mods generally do a good job at giving warnings before banning someone for insults (unless they're REALLY bad or have already been warned before). I think the mods do a good job at interpreting what's an insult and what isn't and they give the offender a warning. I do not believe that's a bad way to moderate. Not against a rules list per se, but the one you agree to when you sign up is in place. I think the gray areas are what sets some folks off. As long as humans are interpreting the rules, there will never be a time that everyone is going to agree about what the rules might mean.

They don't always do that successfully. They are humans, and being purely unbiased is impossible. Sometimes, it is possible that their actions are affected by their personal beliefs, because personal beliefs and actions are handled by the single brains they (and all other humans) have. I am not saying that anyone is at fault, but being humans, there might be somethings that we may always need to reconsider. Neither humans, nor computer can do this perfectly. And this is no one's fault. We come from different cultures, countries. So defining exactly whether something is an insult or not, is a bit complicated.

While if you see computers, they have a disadvantage that they cant judge at all, what is right and what is wrong.

But after all, these things are natural, they are going to happen at some or the other level if you are in a place where different anonymous people come and meet. You can control them, you can't prevent them. Or you can prevent, but that would make the whole idea of forum to be too restrictive that it won't sometimes fulfill the purpose for what people come here for.

 

[ladyforsaken]

Of course people will still misbehave but I still think it helps some, believe it or not. Just cos there will still be misbehaviour doesn't mean one drops all efforts to help those who need it.

Anyway, I think the point is being missed here. I have nothing more to add as I've said what I needed to contribute to the point of this thread.

And what exactly is the point?

The thread is about what can get you banned. I do believe there are rules posted when you first sign up for the forum (or there used to be). There are clear chat rules posted that are mostly likely the same as the forum rules would be, not that it prevents people from breaking them. There's common sense and I'm sorry, but common sense or not, an ******* knows when they are being an *******.

So yeah, what "point" is being missed?

I meant my point that I was making. Apologies on the unclarity. You're telling me that any adult should know what you (you, as Callie) know is right and wrong? That's like saying we all think like you, don't you think?

I have met people who behaved like an ******* but did not realise they were an *******. I had a client who is well way older than me, spewed insults and vulgarities cos of something that caused him upset. My manager had to tell him that his behaviour was insulting - and he took a step back and apologised and truly seemed genuine about it.

So no, I can't say for sure that any ******* would know he or she is behaving like an *******. Some people actually need to be told. Child, adult or senior.

 

[VanillaCreme]

I could be mistaken but I read the post as making the point of, there are simply grey areas. Particularly with text, one could read a sentence and feel a vibe of it being insulting in nature, but it wasn't intended that way. Happens all the time with text communication. I've had some big upsets with my family living abroad because one or the other misunderstands how a text sentence was intended, and that's in spite of us all being careful with our wording and knowing each other for 20+ years. That's not even mentioning how easily it is also done in real life. Think relationships, in particular.

Many forums do not consider this and become ban-happy thinking, unrealistically, that people can be that heavily controlled and justifiably so because of a bullet point list that they claim is black and white but simply never can be. That goes for several of the common "rules" throughout forums in my opinion, but that's a whole other subject.

Just some food for thought, really.

Oh yeah, I know there are gray areas. But there will be regardless. There could be the most detailed listing possible - definitions, meanings, the whole nine - and we will still have people telling us that it's wrong or we're wrong, or that they don't get this or that, or that they don't agree with this, or what exactly is this suppose to really mean... It never ends.

My point is not with the rule or code set itself. It's how there will always be someone who will either misinterpret or want to cause trouble anyway. Some people are saying, "Well, just make a list of rules to follow so we all know," but the thing about it is, someone will make a stink out of it anyway, regardless of what we do.

 

[TheSkaFish]

The "no namecalling" one is easy, we're all in relative agreement on that. But the "no insults" rule, to me, I feel is a little more unclear since namecalling isn't the only way to insult someone.

That just sounds like wanting hand-holding. I'm sorry, but if someone needs to tell you (anyone) what an insult is, then they need to reconsider joining any moderated forum. It's not administrator's or moderator's job to raise anyone. If admin/mod needs to tell anyone exactly what the definition of something is, they need to realize that's not the job of an admin or mod.

"No insults" would be the rule. And already, you're butting heads against that. So, imagine a list where we get people, "Well this is this, and that is that..." It's not that unclear. If someone wants their hand to be held on how to behave, the internet isn't exactly the best place for them to find that guidance.

Also, you're not wasting your breath. We do listen to requests and do what we can to put forth answers to those requests.

An insult involves two parties - the one saying it, and the one receiving it. If the person saying it intends it to be an insult, it's an insult. If the person receiving it feels insulted, it's an insult. And I don't think it's wanting hand-holding when one person, or more, repeatedly feels insulted by the way another treats them. The problem I have with the rule is that it supposes that name-calling is the only way to insult someone. It can be done much more subtly. Only having rules against name-calling doesn't really do anything, it just forces the insulting people to evolve the way they talk down to others. Like I said, I've seen other forums and message boards that expand the rules beyond no name-calling and insults to include intentionally insensitive and inflammatory comments as well. I think that might be better.

---

Yeah, some people seem to think it's an insult when someone doesn't agree with them. Or thinks in a different way or any ideology that they don't agree with. Some people are insulted simply by reading something that a person they don't like posted.

Just because a person chooses to be insulted doesn't mean they actually were....

It's not a choice though. If someone feels insulted by what another says, then it's an insult.

 

[TheSkaFish]

So no, I can't say for sure that any ******* would know he or she is behaving like an *******. Some people actually need to be told. Child, adult or senior.

Don't forget about the ones that know full well how they are acting, but just don't care and do it anyway.

 

[mauthecat]

Why is everyone so obsessed about rules?

 

[user 115627]

Here I go again after all...

You have the right to feel insulted, but that does not validate any sort of reprimand by default. There are certain lines that need to be crossed. What if you feel insulted by the mere challenge to your own opinion? You can't shut down a conversation on that basis alone.

If you have better arguments to support your position or if you are disproving another person's position with evidence and logic, then you are inevitably talking down to other person because of intellectual superiority in that situation. But the mods are going to be the judge of who made the better argument. Or they just shut it down...which I find absolutely terrible and it should be the last resort.

Last but not least - and I seem to repeat that point consistently - there will be moments where the "challenger" will have to realize that their position or their tone is just ineffective in its delivery. Be smart and walk away or change your approach if you are genuinely interested in convincing the other party that they are wrong about something.

I'm in favor of a loose set of rules to be put somewhere for everyone to see. A modicum of common sense is to be expected, but I know it has its limits. Ultimately the mods will still have the final say in regards to interpretation of said rules.

I will leave the argument whether the current moderators (in their numbers) are well-suited for this task to someone else...because I know that argument is always out there somewhere.

 

[TheRealCallie]

An insult involves two parties - the one saying it, and the one receiving it. If the person saying it intends it to be an insult, it's an insult. If the person receiving it feels insulted, it's an insult. And I don't think it's wanting hand-holding when one person, or more, repeatedly feels insulted by the way another treats them. The problem I have with the rule is that it supposes that name-calling is the only way to insult someone. It can be done much more subtly. Only having rules against name-calling doesn't really do anything, it just forces the insulting people to evolve the way they talk down to others. Like I said, I've seen other forums and message boards that expand the rules beyond no name-calling and insults to include intentionally insensitive and inflammatory comments as well. I think that might be better.

If a person saying it intends for it to be an insult, yes, it's an insult. But just because ONE person (or a small clique) interprets it in a way the poster didn't intend it to be doesn't make it an insult.
Calling someone a ***** or a nasty troll, or the c word, or telling a person to go dig up a person's corpse and have sex with it are insults. Disagreeing with someone is not. Continuing to disagree with someone that keeps saying the same thing over and over again is not insulting them, it's trying to make them see another side.

Yeah, some people seem to think it's an insult when someone doesn't agree with them. Or thinks in a different way or any ideology that they don't agree with. Some people are insulted simply by reading something that a person they don't like posted.

Just because a person chooses to be insulted doesn't mean they actually were....

It's not a choice though. If someone feels insulted by what another says, then it's an insult.

Of course it's a choice, everything in life is a choice. If you don't want to be insulted, you won't be insulted. And again, just because a person doesn't like what someone says doesn't mean they were insulted.

 

[TheRealCallie]

Right when you click register, this is what you get. HERE are your rules. Now how many have actually bothered to read these?


A Lonely Life Forums - Registration Agreement
Whilst we attempt to edit or remove any messages containing inappropriate, sexually orientated, abusive, hateful, slanderous, or threatening material that could be considered invasive of a person's privacy, or which otherwise violate any kind of law, it is impossible for us to review every message posted on this discussion system. For this reason you acknowledge that all messages posted on this discussion system express the views and opinions of the original message author and not necessarily the views of this bulletin board. Therefore we take no responsibility and cannot be held liable for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy and completeness of every message.

By registering on this discussion system you agree that you will not post any material which is knowingly false, inaccurate, abusive, hateful, harassing, sexually orientated, threatening or invasive of a person's privacy, or any other material which may violate any applicable laws.

Failure to comply with these rules may result in the termination of your account, account suspension, or permanent ban of access to these forums. Your IP Address is recorded with each post you make on this discussion system and is retrievable by the forum staff if need-be. You agree that we have the ability and right to remove, edit, or lock any account or message at any time should it be seen fit. You also agree that any information you enter on this discussion system is stored in a database, and that "cookies" are stored on your computer to save your login information.

Any information you provide on these forums will not be disclosed to any third party without your complete consent, although the staff cannot be held liable for any hacking attempt in which your data is compromised.

By continuing with the sign up process you agree to the above rules and any others that the Administrator specifies.

 

[mauthecat]

I did.

Right when you click register, this is what you get. HERE are your rules. Now how many have actually bothered to read these?


A Lonely Life Forums - Registration Agreement
Whilst we attempt to edit or remove any messages containing inappropriate, sexually orientated, abusive, hateful, slanderous, or threatening material that could be considered invasive of a person's privacy, or which otherwise violate any kind of law, it is impossible for us to review every message posted on this discussion system. For this reason you acknowledge that all messages posted on this discussion system express the views and opinions of the original message author and not necessarily the views of this bulletin board. Therefore we take no responsibility and cannot be held liable for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy and completeness of every message.

By registering on this discussion system you agree that you will not post any material which is knowingly false, inaccurate, abusive, hateful, harassing, sexually orientated, threatening or invasive of a person's privacy, or any other material which may violate any applicable laws.

Failure to comply with these rules may result in the termination of your account, account suspension, or permanent ban of access to these forums. Your IP Address is recorded with each post you make on this discussion system and is retrievable by the forum staff if need-be. You agree that we have the ability and right to remove, edit, or lock any account or message at any time should it be seen fit. You also agree that any information you enter on this discussion system is stored in a database, and that "cookies" are stored on your computer to save your login information.

Any information you provide on these forums will not be disclosed to any third party without your complete consent, although the staff cannot be held liable for any hacking attempt in which your data is compromised.

By continuing with the sign up process you agree to the above rules and any others that the Administrator specifies.

 

[VanillaCreme]

An insult involves two parties - the one saying it, and the one receiving it. If the person saying it intends it to be an insult, it's an insult. If the person receiving it feels insulted, it's an insult. And I don't think it's wanting hand-holding when one person, or more, repeatedly feels insulted by the way another treats them. The problem I have with the rule is that it supposes that name-calling is the only way to insult someone. It can be done much more subtly. Only having rules against name-calling doesn't really do anything, it just forces the insulting people to evolve the way they talk down to others. Like I said, I've seen other forums and message boards that expand the rules beyond no name-calling and insults to include intentionally insensitive and inflammatory comments as well. I think that might be better.

An insult doesn't always have to include two parties. Just because someone said something that is insulting doesn't mean the person is always insulted by it. People have said many insulting things to me, and I'm sure they'll continue because they have nothing better going on for themselves. But I'm hardly ever offended. I know not everyone is like me, because I'm rarely offended over anything. But people don't have to take it to heart. If they decide to, that's on them. We can't control what others say to us, and no one has the right to not be offended.

That rule also doesn't just assume that name-calling is the only way to insult. I don't know where you're really getting that from. Again, it would vary from case to case, person to person. And it would be handled accordingly. I think most can agree there are gray areas, as was said earlier, but you're acting like it's a black and white issue in total. Even if we detail it, there will still be people who want to question it. "What's intentionally insensitive?" "What are some examples of inflammatory comments?"

It's not as simple as you're thinking, Ska.

 

[TheSkaFish]

You have the right to feel insulted, but that does not validate any sort of reprimand by default. There are certain lines that need to be crossed. What if you feel insulted by the mere challenge to your own opinion? You can't shut down a conversation on that basis alone.

It's not the challenge to my own opinion that bothers me. It's the repeated refusal to stop saying unnecessary, inflammatory things. I feel disrespected when that happens.

Last but not least - and I seem to repeat that point consistently - there will be moments where the "challenger" will have to realize that their position or their tone is just ineffective in its delivery. Be smart and walk away or change your approach if you are genuinely interested in convincing the other party that they are wrong about something.

Most of the time with me though, I'm not trying to convince the other party of anything. I am trying to get them to just leave me alone, and not say things which further destabilize my mood, especially when talking about an already touchy subject.

 

[TheSkaFish]

Right when you click register, this is what you get. HERE are your rules. Now how many have actually bothered to read these?


A Lonely Life Forums - Registration Agreement

I didn't get this when I signed up, and certainly didn't see where it can be found on the board.

abusive, hateful, harassing,

I feel like I've definitely experienced these three, at least.

Disagreeing with someone is not. Continuing to disagree with someone that keeps saying the same thing over and over again is not insulting them, it's trying to make them see another side.

This actually ties in to what I was saying though. Sure, these things might not be insults but they could be seen as insensitive and inflammatory, especially when one person is saying that don't want to hear a certain point of view, they don't want it rammed down their throat. There are also times that I've seen where I just can't believe what someone has said. I can't believe they have had so little emotional intelligence that they couldn't see that what they said was not only unnecessary, but unhelpful. It seems to me that in those times, the person was just trying to provoke a reaction.

 

[VanillaCreme]

What is insensitive to you could not be to someone else. How someone personally feels will never be reflected in a code of conduct, which is why each case and claim is dealt with on its own. A set of rules won't stop someone being upset, whether there's something to actually be upset over or not.

 

[sothatwasmylife]

And as the sun sets on the far horizon...we take time to reflect...remove our shoes and place our respective hats and bonnets on their appointed pegs...another day comes to a close and nights velvet cloak will soon decsend...quietening the birds and likewise our minds