INPUT DESIRED ON 3RD PARTY ABUSE

[Cairnsman]

Mother f@#$%^ grey areas...you gotta love em hey SB.

BTW I'm just participating in this mother f@#$%^ public consultation and so I'm not sure why you are asking me what my main issues are with the new rules and moderation policies...on the whole I think they are fine with the exception of maybe the mother f@#$%^ grey areas.

[bergholt]

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.

There goes 90% of posts in the Essendope thread.

Sounds like a recipe for a fairly boring and anodyne forum to me but happy to go with the majority.

[st.byron]

I think trying to consistently moderate something like third party abuse would be nigh on impossible. There would be just way too many grey areas.

Apart from moderation issues, I don't support the idea at all. I think it would create a pretty beige environment for us all.

Where would you draw the line for abusive language? Saints listed players? Sandy players? What about the footy dept and coaching staff? The board? CEO? Who's exempt from being 'abused' and who isn't? And what exactly constitutes abuse?

My head hurts just thinking about trying to moderate something like that.

And if you draw the line at abuse of Saints players, does that mean it's still ok to call James Hird a &*%$&#*7 6%$#@()*&!@^ ***t? Which he most certainly richly deserves.

If that was the case isn't it just re-drawing the boundary but still making an inherently inconsistent rule -i.e it's ok to abuse some people but not others? And concerns about inconsistency around rules was the main reason for this thread appearing in the first place.

[asiu]

what this place needs is someone with a clue about the 'larrikan australian nature'
overseeing the moderation team.

the current leader is inappropriate for the position he holds
'n should be taking directions not giving them.

certainly we all have our blind spots ,
it comes with being human ,
but repitition bias , anchoring 'n adjustment bias , attribution asymmetry bias ,
group think bias and basic cognitive inertia are the bane of any true leader.

[BackFromUSA]

what this place needs is someone with a clue about the 'larrikan australian nature'
overseeing the moderation team.

the current leader is inappropriate for the position he holds
'n should be taking directions not giving them.

certainly we all have our blind spots ,
it comes with being human ,
but repitition bias , anchoring 'n adjustment bias , attribution asymmetry bias ,
group think bias and basic cognitive inertia are the bane of any true leader.

Thanks for your input on me.

This is NOT my proposal. It has been raised by other posters. We have opened debate. Criticize us when we don't!

I actually have a very good understanding of the 'larrikan australian nature' AND I also can tell when it crosses the line.

I am personally TOTALLY AGAINST creating a specific rule to handle the abuse of 3rd parties ... which only goes to show that what you ASSUME about me is just an opinion and not reality.

I actually believe that the moderators ALREADY have a rule to handle unacceptable abuse of 3rd parties ...

The moderation team has the right to edit, split, move to another Forum or delete threads or posts that in their personal opinion breach any of these terms and at their discretion issue official warnings to the offending poster. Otherwise no other content should be altered by moderators. Should a Moderator be required to edit a post, this will be shown in the post itself and any warning and explanation issued in private to that poster via PM and noted within <> in the original post.

Perhaps extreme cases of abuse against 3rd parties can just be edited by moderators to make them less inflammatory?

Or we can leave them be and posters can counter argue in a respectful way along with some 'larrikan australian nature'.

We are getting input ... choices are

(a) rule
(b) moderators edit
(c) community respond

IMHO

[whiskers3614]

Larrikin*

[asiu]

never thought it was your idea.
why would i.
... i can read ... in fact , like to read.

why ramble on about some obviousness
that has nothing to do with bias.

... which , if u could calm you're self righteousness addiction a little ,
was another simple obviousness ... the gist of my post

my apologies if inadvertantly i've wandered off topic.

... and i paraphrase
' the odd warning isn't the end of the world as we know it
use it as an opportunity to review the rules'

maybe u might take you're own advice
and use this opportunity to review an understanding of 'bias'.

[saintspremiers]

I think some of us including I just assumed as we has gone very G rated that it was just further interference by the Fun Police.

I'll give an example of how third party abuse can be dealt with and is dealt with.

The fat greasy current AFL CEO cops a lot of flack from me, but when I harp on about his corrupt and biased tactics there comes a point where other posters will politely tell me to STFU and that is an effective method to control it to an acceptable level.

There are other examples involving different posters and issues but it works the same way.

[plugger66]

I think some of us including I just assumed as we has gone very G rated that it was just further interference by the Fun Police.

I'll give an example of how third party abuse can be dealt with and is dealt with.

The fat greasy current AFL CEO cops a lot of flack from me, but when I harp on about his corrupt and biased tactics there comes a point where other posters will politely tell me to STFU and that is an effective method to control it to an acceptable level.

There are other examples involving different posters and issues but it works the same way.

You just dont get it SP even when you use examples. I suggest you look up the word racist and then do a course on it.

[saintspremiers]

I think some of us including I just assumed as we has gone very G rated that it was just further interference by the Fun Police.

I'll give an example of how third party abuse can be dealt with and is dealt with.

The fat greasy current AFL CEO cops a lot of flack from me, but when I harp on about his corrupt and biased tactics there comes a point where other posters will politely tell me to STFU and that is an effective method to control it to an acceptable level.

There are other examples involving different posters and issues but it works the same way.

You just dont get it SP even when you use examples. I suggest you look up the word racist and then do a course on it.

WTF are you about plugger, nothing racist in calling someone greasy, as it doesn't imply any particular nationality or race. Maybe you should get back to me.

[plugger66]

I think some of us including I just assumed as we has gone very G rated that it was just further interference by the Fun Police.

I'll give an example of how third party abuse can be dealt with and is dealt with.

The fat greasy current AFL CEO cops a lot of flack from me, but when I harp on about his corrupt and biased tactics there comes a point where other posters will politely tell me to STFU and that is an effective method to control it to an acceptable level.

There are other examples involving different posters and issues but it works the same way.

You just dont get it SP even when you use examples. I suggest you look up the word racist and then do a course on it.

WTF are you about plugger, nothing racist in calling someone greasy, as it doesn't imply any particular nationality or race. Maybe you should get back to me.

Sp you dont get it at all. When you also get to hate the new CEO, which seems certain, there is no way you will call him greasy. you said it because of where AD family come from. That i have no doubt. maybe you should look in the mirror and admit it to yourself. Im sure you will then feel better.

[satchmo]

Start a thread on Grant Thomas and watch what happens. Then consider that Grant has been an active poster on here for many years. Just sayin.

There seems to be a need for a fall guy. A gumby. Player or admin. A name that inspires rabid hatred.
Of recent times...Nettlefold?... Pelchen?...
I remember a game when BJ was abused by Saints fans from start to finish..."useless POS!".
It doesn't need to make sense; It doesn't need to be true. Just a recognisable target to vent at.

Personally, I don't mind when it is aimed at people from other clubs, in fact I enjoy it.
It does make me feel queasy when it's about Saints people.

[st.byron]

it would be great if this thread could remain on topic.

In reference to your comments SP about the further intrusion of the 'Fun Police", this thread was not dreamed up by the mods, it was created at the prompting of other posters in an attempt to clarify the boundaries around abuse.

[saintspremiers]

it would be great if this thread could remain on topic.

In reference to your comments SP about the further intrusion of the 'Fun Police", this thread was not dreamed up by the mods, it was created at the prompting of other posters in an attempt to clarify the boundaries around abuse.

Cool. I realise that. Just stating what I think some of us thought initially that's all.

[WellardSaint]

I think we should maybe follow rules of normal democracy, where freedom of speech and freedom of expression doesn't give one licence to ignore common decency and good taste.

Comments such as "Jones should be shot" are silly and unwarranted, any anyone saying this should cop a one week ban.

[dragit]

This

I think trying to consistently moderate something like third party abuse would be nigh on impossible. There would be just way too many grey areas.

and this

Or we can leave them be and posters can counter argue in a respectful way along with some 'larrikan australian nature'.

(c) community respond

[kimberly saint]

it would be great if this thread could remain on topic.

In reference to your comments SP about the further intrusion of the 'Fun Police", this thread was not dreamed up by the mods, it was created at the prompting of other posters in an attempt to clarify the boundaries around abuse.

Was just wondering wat the boundaries are on personal attacks , in relation to cyber bullying. An example like say a poster has less than average english skills and another poster belittled them on a post with few spelling mistakes etc st byron ????????

[8856brother]

it would be great if this thread could remain on topic.

In reference to your comments SP about the further intrusion of the 'Fun Police", this thread was not dreamed up by the mods, it was created at the prompting of other posters in an attempt to clarify the boundaries around abuse.

Was just wondering wat the boundaries are on personal attacks , in relation to cyber bullying. An example like say a poster has less than average english skills and another poster belittled them on a post with few spelling mistakes etc st byron ????????

With you on this one Kim. There is only one thing on this forum that really drives me mad. The "more educated" who find it necessary to pull people up on spelling and grammar errors. I just dont get it. Really irritating.

Hope my spelling was ok.

[asiu]

there's also been a general baggn of the proponent of such behaviour
as 'the last retort of one who has lost the arguement' hasnt there?

Thats the 'unwritten rule' of involvement as i understand it.

(except in cases of 'the self proclaimed more educated' who get their
deserved serve)

[st.byron]

Was just wondering wat the boundaries are on personal attacks , in relation to cyber bullying. An example like say a poster has less than average english skills and another poster belittled them on a post with few spelling mistakes etc st byron ????????

Boundaries on personal attacks would be the same as for the rules re any other topic and are covered by :

"At no point can any post be directed negatively towards another poster in terms of abuse or threats.

Vigorous debate and friendly banter on St. Kilda Football Club matters is encouraged, as long as there is respect for each other’s opinions. No matter how much you disagree, or dismiss the worth of any opinion posted, or dismiss the worth of the poster in your eyes, your response must be respectful. Argue the facts. Post an opposing opinion. Do NOT make commentary about the poster - ONLY the post. If you tease, mock or bait another poster, or abuse them, OR repeatedly revisit past disagreements causing or creating an ongoing dispute between one or more posters, this is regarded as a breach of rules in the Fan Forum and will result in the issuing of a Saintsational warning. Such ongoing disputes can result in multiple breaches and can result in multiple Saintsational warnings."

and this

"There will be zero tolerance for teasing, mocking, baiting, belittling, badgering, bullying or any insulting, abusive, sexist, racist, ageist, homophobic, religiously or culturally offensive, or threatening behaviour. Such behaviour constitutes a breach of rules and a Saintsational warning will be issued."

Does that answer your question?

[kimberly saint]

Was just wondering wat the boundaries are on personal attacks , in relation to cyber bullying. An example like say a poster has less than average english skills and another poster belittled them on a post with few spelling mistakes etc st byron ????????

Boundaries on personal attacks would be the same as for the rules re any other topic and are covered by :

"At no point can any post be directed negatively towards another poster in terms of abuse or threats.

Vigorous debate and friendly banter on St. Kilda Football Club matters is encouraged, as long as there is respect for each other’s opinions. No matter how much you disagree, or dismiss the worth of any opinion posted, or dismiss the worth of the poster in your eyes, your response must be respectful. Argue the facts. Post an opposing opinion. Do NOT make commentary about the poster - ONLY the post. If you tease, mock or bait another poster, or abuse them, OR repeatedly revisit past disagreements causing or creating an ongoing dispute between one or more posters, this is regarded as a breach of rules in the Fan Forum and will result in the issuing of a Saintsational warning. Such ongoing disputes can result in multiple breaches and can result in multiple Saintsational warnings."

and this

"There will be zero tolerance for teasing, mocking, baiting, belittling, badgering, bullying or any insulting, abusive, sexist, racist, ageist, homophobic, religiously or culturally offensive, or threatening behaviour. Such behaviour constitutes a breach of rules and a Saintsational warning will be issued."

Does that answer your question?

well lets hope you take it on board , being your name is highlighted and all these days

[st.byron]

well lets hope you take it on board , being your name is highlighted and all these days

Not sure what you mean by that KS???

[kimberly saint]

well lets hope you take it on board , being your name is highlighted and all these days

Not sure what you mean by that KS???

This chap by the name of think was st byron had dig at me out the blue in the trades thread suggesting i would get more responses to my post if my gramour was better (maybe the poster had his head wedgd that far up his own back side he failed to see how much toss bag he sounded in suggesting this and just thought he was being helpful) .
Now we are pretty thick skinned up in the remote kimberleys but sum else who has below average english skills may have taken it as cyber bullying, the exact dribble you were talking about couple post ago . Me i just took it personally

[st.byron]

This chap by the name of think was st byron had dig at me out the blue in the trades thread suggesting i would get more responses to my post if my gramour was better (maybe the poster had his head wedgd that far up his own back side he failed to see how much toss bag he sounded in suggesting this and just thought he was being helpful) .
Now we are pretty thick skinned up in the remote kimberleys but sum else who has below average english skills may have taken it as cyber bullying, the exact dribble you were talking about couple post ago . Me i just took it personally

Clearly you took it personally if you still remember it. Zero recall here on my part. Must have been a long time ago so if you still remember it it must have pissed you off.....sorry about that.
I probably wouldn't complain about someone's grammar just on its' own.....it used to annoy me when people posted without punctuation or capitals....like they were sending an SMS. Kind of stream of consciousness stuff and it was hard to read......anyway I'm not perfect and if you felt aggrieved, sorry about that.

Anyone else want to have a crack and clear the air whilst we're at it?

[skeptic]

The thing is I think these type of personalised attacks on players/whoever, generally aren't that popular on the whole and the forumites that approach posts like that are usually more often then not either put in their place, or they learn that this approach usually detracts from the conversation.

For example, I'm CJ's number #1 critic and have pbly led the way for his retirement/cut from the list since about 2011 on wards. I don't particularly like him... certainly don't rate him and think it's a joke that we kept him above a player like Ledger. The recent posts about him being taken out the back and shot, despite not being literal, were in really poor taste and it wasn't a conversation that I would partake in. Not worth the time really.

Someone wants to make an argument that Geary should be cut... I'll read with interest. That argument includes words like stupid, jerk, useless etc well it's less interesting.

I guess what I'm saying is I feel ot's not really a problem and it often tends to fix itself