INPUT DESIRED ON 3RD PARTY ABUSE

[BackFromUSA]

Mods have received feedback from some vocal posters that it's inconsistent to prevent posters using abusive language to each other, whilst having the freedom (within the limitations of the swearing and offensive behaviour rules) to ridicule and abuse people unconnected to the site.

There is a current of thought among these posters (and not necessarily the mods) that the increased vigilance around abuse of other posters in the updated rules should thus be extended to cover abusive language of third parties unrelated to the forum. This could cover players, Saints or otherwise, officials, media people or anyone else involved with footy.

To be a workable policy it would also probably have to extend to abusive language or descriptions of all third parties, even those with no connection to the site and include all forums except the Animal Enclosure.

As we are continuing to be consultative with the Saintsational community, we seek your input (for a few days) to discover whether or not a majority of posters agree or disagree with an extension of the zero abuse tolerance policy to third parties unrelated to the site.

Please put your thoughts in this thread.

[plugger66]

I am completely lost. Can you give an example of what you mean?

[BackFromUSA]

Under current rules this is NOT allowed:

"Poster A is absolute rubbish. His / her post is a complete load of brainless stupidity, The forum is dying because of this idiot."

Under current rules this is allowed:

"Player A is absolute rubbish. He has the intelligence of an ant and adds nothing to the team. A complete waste of space."

Should it be?

(apologies that the quality of my abuse is not up to others lofty standards)

[st.byron]

For example, you can't call someone a s*** head. "St.Byron, You're a s*** head" or "Byron is a s*** head" would be rule breaches and incur a warning.

But for e.g. "Eddie McGuire is a total s*** head" or "Clint Jones is a totally useless piece of s*** and should never pull on a Saints jumper again" or "Clint Jones should be taken out the back and shot, he's a waste of space" - these are all fine because they refer to third parties not on the forum.

Is there any interest amongst posters to extend the ban on abusive language to not being able to use abuse in reference to non-posters?

Is that clear?

[plugger66]

Under current rules this is NOT allowed:

"Poster A is absolute rubbish. His / her post is a complete load of brainless stupidity, The forum is dying because of this idiot."

Under current rules this is allowed:

"Player A is absolute rubbish. He has the intelligence of an ant and adds nothing to the team. A complete waste of space."

Should it be?

(apologies that the quality of my abuse is not up to others lofty standards)

Thanks. i get it now. I think calling our players names like retards and spastics should not be allowed. matter of fact I dont think anyone should be called that. Its a Saints fan forum but posters get more protection than the players we come on here to support. Now that is a bit weird IMO.

[dragit]

To be a workable policy it would also probably have to extend to abusive language or descriptions of all third parties, even those with no connection to the site and include all forums except the Animal Enclosure.

I think this is a terrible idea personally…

Occasionally this type of "colourful" abuse goes too far… but we don't want a completely beige site surely?

I take umbrage to Montagna being called a selfish, downhill skier or Tom Lee being called a complete spud… but I would prefer to counter it in the thread than issue warnings and potential bans

We already have strict rules around racism, sexism, swearing & now abusing each other… surely we don't want commentator X is a complete nuffie outlawed?

If we are thinking about more drastic changes to the posting guidelines, I think we definitely need to see voting… A few vocal people complaining does not equal what most people want.

[dragit]

I hate some of the stuff that I hear from our supporters about our players when I go to the football, but that's life.

Redeemer has obviously gone way over the top on CJ this week, but surely no-one takes this stuff seriously?

Ignoring ridiculous posts is much easier than trying to censor everything.

[BackFromUSA]

We are not advocating it. Just putting it out for discussion rather than be accused of not listening to the will of the community.

[dragit]

We are not advocating it. Just putting it out for discussion rather than be accused of not listening to the will of the community.

No probs, understood cheers.

[asiu]

what about the blind cheating maggots in the game day
or in post game threads ?
... the next opposition sniper who takes out one of our players behind play ?
... the next brownbagging pencil pusher who says 'Let em rot' ?

Sport is sanctified War in the modern environment for the supporter ... controlled release of pent up tension 'n aggression in a safe environment.
... remove the 'pressure valve' at your peril ... imo

[SainterK]

Do you think players read SS?

I worry what some stuff could do to their head.

I heard stuff on here contributed to a former player having a tough time.

We have the benefit of being anonymous, but the abuse unleashes on a very real target.

I'm uncomfortable with some of it personally.

Call me beige...I don't care

[plugger66]

Do you think players read SS?

I worry what some stuff could do to their head.

I heard stuff on here contributed to a former player having a tough time.

We have the benefit of being anonymous, but the abuse unleashes on a very real target.

I'm uncomfortable with some of it personally.

Call me beige...I don't care

Based on experience i doubt any read it but im sure a few friends and family do. Doubt it would have any effect though.

[dragit]

Do you think players read SS?

I worry what some stuff could do to their head.

I heard stuff on here contributed to a former player having a tough time.

We have the benefit of being anonymous, but the abuse unleashes on a very real target.

I'm uncomfortable with some of it personally.

Call me beige...I don't care

Maybe there is a line that can be drawn around serious abuse, but players should just not be on here unless they are willing to hear the good/bad/ugliest opinions on them as players…

If you want the quiet life without constant judgement, you shouldn't become a professional sportsman.

Players are constantly critiqued in mass media, so what is said on a fan forum should be of little significance really…

[Enrico_Misso]

For example, you can't call someone a s*** head. "St.Byron, You're a s*** head" or "Byron is a s*** head" would be rule breaches and incur a warning.

But for e.g. "Eddie McGuire is a total s*** head" or "Clint Jones is a totally useless piece of s*** and should never pull on a Saints jumper again" or "Clint Jones should be taken out the back and shot, he's a waste of space" - these are all fine because they refer to third parties not on the forum.

Is there any interest amongst posters to extend the ban on abusive language to not being able to use abuse in reference to non-posters?

Is that clear?

Surely it would be easy to prove in a court of law that Eddie McGuire is a Total S***head?

[desertsaint]

what about the blind cheating maggots in the game day
or in post game threads ?
... the next opposition sniper who takes out one of our players behind play ?
... the next brownbagging pencil pusher who says 'Let em rot' ?

Sport is sanctified War in the modern environment for the supporter ... controlled release of pent up tension 'n aggression in a safe environment.
... remove the 'pressure valve' at your peril ... imo

The giraffe sees things from a higher plane.
Some shout at clouds politely, some with venom. The clouds don't hear. Should we be hurt on their behalf?

[asiu]

was just wondering that about Bye in the other thread.
Bye has feelings too.
... is Bye offended by being branded useless.

but at least the Human released some of that pent up stress n tension.
... the cat will be glad.

[stinger]

so if i call a child rapist or a woman beater a mongrel dog or a waste of space, that's going to be considered abusive and cop a warning...give me a break...or are we just talking about the footy forum...and not the general..


...imho this place is getting to be like a kindergarten.....already you give warnings ...well maybe only sometimes...to posters who say s***...when i see that word on every other forum i visit...with not a word of complaint......what are we becoming????


abuse of saints footballers should however be curtailed..imho...i know the damage that this site in particular did to one former player......i would support toning down that sort of abuse....

[borderbarry]

It is a pity this was not considered a couple of years ago when Raph Clarke was playing. I was disgusted with a lot of the posters at that time. It does not seem to be as bad now.

i hope you are considering extending this to umpires?

<Barry, just to clarify. The Mods are not as a group advocating this proposal. We would all have our personal opinions about it but the thread has been created at the request of posters expressing their concern about third party abuse or about the inconsistency in the rules between abuse of those connected to the site and those that aren't.

It's intended as a means to find out how forumites feel about the issue and if the rules around abuse should be extended. Any extension will be the outcome of a clear majority of posters wanting an extension.>

[saintspremiers]

Very very silly idea and would ruin the forum. That's a big no from me!

[Cairnsman]

I think the occasional outburst and rant on here or at the footy is one thing but the continual use of Information Technology to deliberately and repeatedly abuse and harass in a hostile manner is cyberbullying.

Do the Cyberbullying laws discriminate in the way our rules do?

If poster 'X' takes a dislike to a player and decides to wage a campaign against that player, then poster 'X' could be waging the same campaign against that player on many other social media sites as well.

Threads and posts being generated about CJ that are abusive and hostile are becoming more frequent with the run-on inviting the pack-mentality to join in the abuse and hostility.

I wonder if we continue to allow such discrimination in our rules, whether will we create a community that protects and promotes Cyberbullying against certain individuals. Does it matter who they?

Kosi and Raph used to be on the receiving end of relentless cyberbullying as defined by the cyberbullying laws, however, prior to the current board rules and moderation policies they were at least afforded some support and defense by community minded posters interjecting in a way that would no get you banned.

Interesting debate and an even more interesting public consultation process as Simon has me on ignore and won't be able to consider my contribution.

[st.byron]

I
Kosi and Raph used to be on the receiving end of relentless cyberbullying as defined by the cyberbullying laws, however, prior to the current board rules and moderation policies they were at least afforded some support and defense by community minded posters interjecting in a way that would no get you banned.

A couple of questions. I'm not sure you could call the posts about Kosi and Raph cyberbullying if they never read them. Is that within the definition of cyber bullying?
I can certainly remember Kosi and Raph copping it but where does criticism cross the line into cyber bullying? And is it still bullying if you don't know if the person it's about reads it?

Second, can you elaborate on how the current rules and moderation policies prevent posters expressing their views in opposition to criticism or abuse of players? People aren't allowed to abuse other posters, but can still strongly disagree.

[dragit]

Threads and posts being generated about CJ that are abusive and hostile are becoming more frequent with the run-on inviting the pack-mentality to join in the abuse and hostility.

I think this is largely a myth… TBH.
From memory it has only been one or two posters who have gone out of bounds on Clint, the rest of the contributions have been about his football.
Saying you want a player dropped or delisted is not abuse or hostile… surely?
That said, I am happy to see the small amount of really nasty personal abuse directed at players removed, it's absolutely unnecessary and does little for the forum. I think there were probably 2 posts in the recent CJ thread that would qualify.

[mr six o'clock]

Disadvantageous dam copulater ....... OK !

Useless mother f@#$%^ ......... Not OK !

Or am i being silly ?

[Cairnsman]

I
Kosi and Raph used to be on the receiving end of relentless cyberbullying as defined by the cyberbullying laws, however, prior to the current board rules and moderation policies they were at least afforded some support and defense by community minded posters interjecting in a way that would no get you banned.

A couple of questions. I'm not sure you could call the posts about Kosi and Raph cyberbullying if they never read them. Is that within the definition of cyber bullying?
I can certainly remember Kosi and Raph copping it but where does criticism cross the line into cyber bullying? And is it still bullying if you don't know if the person it's about reads it?

Second, can you elaborate on how the current rules and moderation policies prevent posters expressing their views in opposition to criticism or abuse of players? People aren't allowed to abuse other posters, but can still strongly disagree.

Before I answer your question I'd like to ask you a question, have you read and understood the cyberbullying laws referenced in our rules? Have you considered your legal obligations and risks as administrators and moderators with regards to cyberbullying?

[st.byron]

Before I answer your question I'd like to ask you a question, have you read and understood the cyberbullying laws referenced in our rules? Have you considered your legal obligations and risks as administrators and moderators with regards to cyberbullying?

I hadn't read them no and am not aware that being a voluntary anonymous moderator on an anonymous football fan forum has any legal obligations at all. Wouldn't have thought I have legal obligations different to anyone else on the forum.

Now I have read the cyberbullying info referenced in our rules, I find this to be the most pertinent :

"What does cyberbullying look like?

Being sent mean or hurtful text messages from someone you know or even someone you don’t know
Getting nasty, threatening or hurtful messages through social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, or through sites where people can ask / answer questions like
Formspring or Internet forums
People sending photos and videos of you to others to try and embarrass or hurt you
People spreading rumours about you via emails or social networking sites or text messages
People trying to stop you from communicating with others
People stealing your passwords or getting into your accounts and changing the information there
People setting up fake profiles pretending to be you, or posting messages or status updates from your account"

The only one I think could have any relevance to things written on SS is "People spreading rumours about you via emails or social networking sites or text messages".
I suppose you could argue that someone writing derogatory comments about Clint Jones falls into this category, but it seems a pretty long bow to me. Clint Jones probably doesn't read this forum. Who knows? And does saying that he's ****ing useless and should be taken out the back and shot constitute a rumour? Or is it just the personal opinion of a much frustrated and disappointed supporter?
And if that does constitute cyber bullying, then any derogatory, abusive or nasty stuff written anywhere on the internet is cyber-bullying...it really goes to the guts of the level of abuse that is considered the norm in our culture...

So I'm still interested in if you think comments about players constitutes cyber-bullying as it seems pretty grey to me. And exactly what are your main issues with the new rules and moderation policies?