desertsaint wrote:and here we all are then.
well, missing one.
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
desertsaint wrote:and here we all are then.
well, missing one.
SENsaintsational wrote:"Open and honest dialogue" - well done St Byron on your discussions. Even handed and maturely handled.
I also don't agree that POQ should've been POQ'd but your interpretation is your interpretation. I thought that was heavy handed. I have seen plenty worse along the journey that has gone unchallenged.
I realise Simon has been absent from the site for a while. I hope all is well. As such, I assume any progress on site updates has been stalled?
The context was also relevant in this case. This part of the rules was also relevant here :SENsaintsational wrote:"Open and honest dialogue" - well done St Byron on your discussions. Even handed and maturely handled.
I also don't agree that POQ should've been POQ'd but your interpretation is your interpretation. I thought that was heavy handed. I have seen plenty worse along the journey that has gone unchallenged.
I realise Simon has been absent from the site for a while. I hope all is well. As such, I assume any progress on site updates has been stalled?
Matrix, did you read the Third Party Abuse thread?matrix wrote:LOL at the jones retard comments
LOL indeed
if mods cant see its actually not the bit about calling jones a retard thats the prob and that its actually showing some respect for mentally and physically impaired people then you need to hand the badge in
so bascially youve set the bar
so we can now call jones a retatrded spastic muppet who cant kick to save his life because he has an iq of ten which is pretty much like being a spastic?
great work![]()
secondly
no abbreviation of swearing
so what we are saying is FFS and WTF (which my mates 14 year old son uses in texts messages) is a no no but when you type the word f*** and it blanks out the last three letters this is ok?
even though its obvious that its the word f***???????
now that is just completely and utterly laughable and its stupid s*** like that being the reason the traffic around here is the lowest its EVER been
FMD
In practice, by far the majority of warnings given are the result of reported posts. In the past calendar month for example, there have been 58 reported posts with 12 warnings issued. I have on occasion come across a post where it's clear that a warning is appropriate and acted immediately, but usually posts are scrutinised more closely when reported.HitTheBoundary wrote:Thanks for all the answers St.Byron.
How do warnings work in practice, do only reported posts get scrutinised, or are all threads reviewed, or is it just reported posts and threads that mods happen to read? (I hope my question is clear).
I suppose the scenario I'm wondering about is if there are 1000 posts all very similar, but of those 1000 only 3 by the same poster get reported - once again by only one SS member, then are the other 977 posts also equally scrutinised?
For instance, if I continually report p66's posts, then is he more likely to get banned than non reported posts that were of similar quality? Is there some sort of mechanism to prevent vexatious or vindictive reporting, or the possibility of the person reporting having their own agenda?
My question relates to fairness, it may be that the reported posts are against the rules, but if others (non-reported) are not getting warnings because they weren't reported then the system would be imbalanced, IMO.
By the way, I understand the whole thing is never going to perfect and the mods are in a no win situation, I'm just wondering how it works in practice.
I didn't ask for your contribution. My post was directed to St Byron. I don't wish to converse with you. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.stinger wrote:SENsaintsational wrote:"Open and honest dialogue" - well done St Byron on your discussions. Even handed and maturely handled.
I also don't agree that POQ should've been POQ'd but your interpretation is your interpretation. I thought that was heavy handed. I have seen plenty worse along the journey that has gone unchallenged.
I realise Simon has been absent from the site for a while. I hope all is well. As such, I assume any progress on site updates has been stalled?
rules are rules...you break them you pay the penalty..that poster got exactly what he deserved.......some of his anti-semitic crap should have seen him banned for life...imho, that is.
..the mods have been way too lenient in their efforts to be impartial.....
SENsaintsational wrote:I didn't ask for your contribution. My post was directed to St Byron. I don't wish to converse with you. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.stinger wrote:SENsaintsational wrote:"Open and honest dialogue" - well done St Byron on your discussions. Even handed and maturely handled.
I also don't agree that POQ should've been POQ'd but your interpretation is your interpretation. I thought that was heavy handed. I have seen plenty worse along the journey that has gone unchallenged.
I realise Simon has been absent from the site for a while. I hope all is well. As such, I assume any progress on site updates has been stalled?
rules are rules...you break them you pay the penalty..that poster got exactly what he deserved.......some of his anti-semitic crap should have seen him banned for life...imho, that is.
..the mods have been way too lenient in their efforts to be impartial.....
Perhaps we should re-visit the third party abuse question, specifically with regard to using words like spastic, retard or any others that people put forward.desertsaint wrote:i don't think Matriz was canning abuse of a player but rather the use of a particular offensive word.
I'm personally of a view that if a person wants to show themselves to be an idiot, or uncouth, or racist, or sexist, then let them expose themselves. But I certainly would agree that the particular word in question, used in that context, is as bad as any swear word (which we do censor).
i agree...calling pollies rude names is one thing....insulting saints players in the way jones has been should never be tolerated.....st.byron wrote:Perhaps we should re-visit the third party abuse question, specifically with regard to using words like spastic, retard or any others that people put forward.desertsaint wrote:i don't think Matriz was canning abuse of a player but rather the use of a particular offensive word.
I'm personally of a view that if a person wants to show themselves to be an idiot, or uncouth, or racist, or sexist, then let them expose themselves. But I certainly would agree that the particular word in question, used in that context, is as bad as any swear word (which we do censor).
It should be noted though, that doing this would be in an environment where there are several long time posters already saying that things are becoming too bland and G-rated.
Thoughts?
I request you stop baiting me. Now. This is becoming repetitive. I am requesting now that you do not respond to any of my posts. I am requesting this both publically and privately. I will not be baited by the likes of you.stinger wrote:SENsaintsational wrote:I didn't ask for your contribution. My post was directed to St Byron. I don't wish to converse with you. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.stinger wrote:SENsaintsational wrote:"Open and honest dialogue" - well done St Byron on your discussions. Even handed and maturely handled.
I also don't agree that POQ should've been POQ'd but your interpretation is your interpretation. I thought that was heavy handed. I have seen plenty worse along the journey that has gone unchallenged.
I realise Simon has been absent from the site for a while. I hope all is well. As such, I assume any progress on site updates has been stalled?
rules are rules...you break them you pay the penalty..that poster got exactly what he deserved.......some of his anti-semitic crap should have seen him banned for life...imho, that is.
..the mods have been way too lenient in their efforts to be impartial.....
why are you doing so then.....anyway...
i really feel the same about you too..but in the circumstances i thought it appropriate to post what i did......after all it is a public forum...if you wish to converse with st b in private, i suggest you do so by pm.....
you were expressing an opinion on a subject that was really none of you business poq got banned for continually insulting and baiting me...not you..
If I'm at the footy and someone is yelling out "you're useless Jones", then it's annoying, but within the realms of acceptability.st.byron wrote:Perhaps we should re-visit the third party abuse question, specifically with regard to using words like spastic, retard or any others that people put forward.desertsaint wrote:i don't think Matriz was canning abuse of a player but rather the use of a particular offensive word.
I'm personally of a view that if a person wants to show themselves to be an idiot, or uncouth, or racist, or sexist, then let them expose themselves. But I certainly would agree that the particular word in question, used in that context, is as bad as any swear word (which we do censor).
It should be noted though, that doing this would be in an environment where there are several long time posters already saying that things are becoming too bland and G-rated.
Thoughts?
I agree with this and Matrix above too. Calling someone useless is totally different to calling them a retard, spastic or in the case of young people I have heard, calling someone a 'downie'. It's not acceptable conduct in society and shouldn't be acceptable here. Question someone's ability all you like, but don't allow abuse to do it.HitTheBoundary wrote:If I'm at the footy and someone is yelling out "you're useless Jones", then it's annoying, but within the realms of acceptability.st.byron wrote:Perhaps we should re-visit the third party abuse question, specifically with regard to using words like spastic, retard or any others that people put forward.desertsaint wrote:i don't think Matriz was canning abuse of a player but rather the use of a particular offensive word.
I'm personally of a view that if a person wants to show themselves to be an idiot, or uncouth, or racist, or sexist, then let them expose themselves. But I certainly would agree that the particular word in question, used in that context, is as bad as any swear word (which we do censor).
It should be noted though, that doing this would be in an environment where there are several long time posters already saying that things are becoming too bland and G-rated.
Thoughts?
But if someone suddenly starts yelling "Jones is a retard/spastic" etc. then I would find that offensive, as I think most people would.
So I agree that it's not so much third party abuse (criticism?) that is the issue, rather the language used.
And St. Byron thanks for the info re the reports/warnings.
well stop replying to me then....you have always stuck up for those that abuse me...i will not stand idly by and allow you to whinge and whine about poq's banning without comment...you sir are a bully and you are trying to bully me into not questioning your posts....fat chance....don't like what i post ...put me on ignore....but don't threaten me with mods....SENsaintsational wrote:I request you stop baiting me. Now. This is becoming repetitive. I am requesting now that you do not respond to any of my posts. I am requesting this both publically and privately. I will not be baited by the likes of you.stinger wrote:SENsaintsational wrote:I didn't ask for your contribution. My post was directed to St Byron. I don't wish to converse with you. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.stinger wrote:SENsaintsational wrote:"Open and honest dialogue" - well done St Byron on your discussions. Even handed and maturely handled.
I also don't agree that POQ should've been POQ'd but your interpretation is your interpretation. I thought that was heavy handed. I have seen plenty worse along the journey that has gone unchallenged.
I realise Simon has been absent from the site for a while. I hope all is well. As such, I assume any progress on site updates has been stalled?
rules are rules...you break them you pay the penalty..that poster got exactly what he deserved.......some of his anti-semitic crap should have seen him banned for life...imho, that is.
..the mods have been way too lenient in their efforts to be impartial.....
why are you doing so then.....anyway...
i really feel the same about you too..but in the circumstances i thought it appropriate to post what i did......after all it is a public forum...if you wish to converse with st b in private, i suggest you do so by pm.....
you were expressing an opinion on a subject that was really none of you business poq got banned for continually insulting and baiting me...not you..
As per the precedent set in the Bunk Moreland case, I wish for my position in this matter to be respected or will seek Mod intervention. I think that is clear enough.
SENsaintsational wrote:Reported for baiting.
stinger wrote:well stop replying to me then....you have always stuck up for those that abuse me...i will not stand idly by and allow you to whinge and whine about poq's banning without comment...you sir are a bully and you are trying to bully me into not questioning your posts....fat chance....don't like what i post ...put me on ignore....but don't threaten me with mods....SENsaintsational wrote:I request you stop baiting me. Now. This is becoming repetitive. I am requesting now that you do not respond to any of my posts. I am requesting this both publically and privately. I will not be baited by the likes of you.stinger wrote:SENsaintsational wrote:I didn't ask for your contribution. My post was directed to St Byron. I don't wish to converse with you. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.stinger wrote:SENsaintsational wrote:"Open and honest dialogue" - well done St Byron on your discussions. Even handed and maturely handled.
I also don't agree that POQ should've been POQ'd but your interpretation is your interpretation. I thought that was heavy handed. I have seen plenty worse along the journey that has gone unchallenged.
I realise Simon has been absent from the site for a while. I hope all is well. As such, I assume any progress on site updates has been stalled?
rules are rules...you break them you pay the penalty..that poster got exactly what he deserved.......some of his anti-semitic crap should have seen him banned for life...imho, that is.
..the mods have been way too lenient in their efforts to be impartial.....
why are you doing so then.....anyway...
i really feel the same about you too..but in the circumstances i thought it appropriate to post what i did......after all it is a public forum...if you wish to converse with st b in private, i suggest you do so by pm.....
you were expressing an opinion on a subject that was really none of you business poq got banned for continually insulting and baiting me...not you..
As per the precedent set in the Bunk Moreland case, I wish for my position in this matter to be respected or will seek Mod intervention. I think that is clear enough.
Good get Byron. I was about to raise those figures and ask if it meant that the Mods were being very liberal, or that much reporting is vexatious.st.byron wrote: ... 58 reports, 12 warnings. People do tend to use the report function as a political tool...
As things currently stand there is no mechanism to prevent vexatious or vindictive reporting...
Dave McNamara wrote:Good get Byron. I was about to raise those figures and ask if it meant that the Mods were being very liberal, or that much reporting is vexatious.st.byron wrote: ... 58 reports, 12 warnings. People do tend to use the report function as a political tool...
As things currently stand there is no mechanism to prevent vexatious or vindictive reporting...
Just like staging in footy is now (supposedly) a reportable offence, could vexatious reporting be added to the list of crimes that can attract a Saintsational warning?
I realise that this would add yet another grey area re 'interpretation' to an already long list, but hey, would one more (grey area) therefore matter...?
stinger wrote: well stop replying to me then....you have always stuck up for those that abuse me...i will not stand idly by and allow you to whinge and whine about poq's banning without comment...you sir are a bully and you are trying to bully me into not questioning your posts....fat chance....don't like what i post ...put me on ignore....but don't threaten me with mods....
I agree with Dave. It's a great idea.stinger wrote:don't agree with that....Dave McNamara wrote:Good get Byron. I was about to raise those figures and ask if it meant that the Mods were being very liberal, or that much reporting is vexatious.st.byron wrote: ... 58 reports, 12 warnings. People do tend to use the report function as a political tool...
As things currently stand there is no mechanism to prevent vexatious or vindictive reporting...
Just like staging in footy is now (supposedly) a reportable offence, could vexatious reporting be added to the list of crimes that can attract a Saintsational warning?
I realise that this would add yet another grey area re 'interpretation' to an already long list, but hey, would one more (grey area) therefore matter...?
HitTheBoundary wrote:I agree with Dave. It's a great idea.stinger wrote:don't agree with that....Dave McNamara wrote:Good get Byron. I was about to raise those figures and ask if it meant that the Mods were being very liberal, or that much reporting is vexatious.st.byron wrote: ... 58 reports, 12 warnings. People do tend to use the report function as a political tool...
As things currently stand there is no mechanism to prevent vexatious or vindictive reporting...
Just like staging in footy is now (supposedly) a reportable offence, could vexatious reporting be added to the list of crimes that can attract a Saintsational warning?
I realise that this would add yet another grey area re 'interpretation' to an already long list, but hey, would one more (grey area) therefore matter...?
It could also cut down the work for the mods if people only report if they're really upset, rather than just using it as a mechanism to get back at a poster they don't like.