INPUT DESIRED ON 3RD PARTY ABUSE

[perfectionist]

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.

Agree.

[Dis Believer]

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

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

Yeah
U suk
just bcoz

LOL.............

[Dis Believer]

As a general rule I would not post soemthing I would not be prepared to say to someone's face - having said that, I have no issue with conflict as many people do.
However, I think trying to regulate abuse against third parties is a bridge too far, and probably unneccessary. However anyone threating violence or an illegal act probably needs their post moderated and told to pull their head in. Saying CJ needs to be dropped and delisted is a tolerable opinion. Saying he should be taken out back and shot is juvenile, tasteless and brainless.

[st.byron]

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

Yeah
U suk
just bcoz

LOL............. [/quote]

[st.byron]

This thread's been up for long enough now to come to a conclusion about third party abuse, which is :

The rules are designed to protect posters/forum members. Those outside the forum are fair game, provided posts are within the swearing and offensive language rules.
Moderating something like 3rd party abuse would be a total can of worms and when someone does cross the line re one of our players, other posters step up and call them out on it.

No changes to the rules re third party abuse.

[stinger]

This thread's been up for long enough now to come to a conclusion about third party abuse, which is :

The rules are designed to protect posters/forum members. Those outside the forum are fair game, provided posts are within the swearing and offensive language rules.
Moderating something like 3rd party abuse would be a total can of worms and when someone does cross the line re one of our players, other posters step up and call them out on it.

No changes to the rules re third party abuse.

sanity prevails....

[plugger66]

So on a saints forum we can say a saints player is a spastic but then cant tell that person he is an idiot. Seems weird to me on a saints forum.

[desertsaint]

So on a saints forum we can say a saints player is a spastic but then cant tell that person he is an idiot. Seems weird to me on a saints forum.

Yes, if someone is an idiot we should be able to call them on it. If not we'll become inundated with them, it's already happened on the streets out there, in social media, in government, everywhere.

[matrix]

so technically then a prev username is open slather to mock and call a peanut?

i mean if that person, ie username, is no longer posting here then its a third party not associated with the site correct?

[stinger]

so technically then a prev username is open slather to mock and call a peanut?

i mean if that person, ie username, is no longer posting here then its a third party not associated with the site correct?

that's also my view

[matrix]

just trying to clear a few things up
some of these rules are a bit grey

[asiu]

that's also my view

the wind not blowing the moderators way today ?

... my view is that Linda make the best electric blankets
on the market.

<this post has been reviewed and a warning issued for baiting the poster based on the fact that the post has no reference at all to the issue being debated, it makes a clear assertion regarding the poster's character designed to aain a response, but also importantly referencing "linda" which is part of a previous "abuse and baiting" for which POQ received a previous warning. For the third time in 8 days (and thus just avoiding a ban), POQ has been warned under this rule>

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.

[GrumpyOne]

that's also my view

the wind not blowing the moderators way today ?

... my view is that Linda make the best electric blankets
on the market.

My view is the side fence.

[Bunk_Moreland]

so technically then a prev username is open slather to mock and call a peanut?

i mean if that person, ie username, is no longer posting here then its a third party not associated with the site correct?

if it is directed at someone who has specifically asked not to be called that you will get reported and if you are a recidivist you will get warned by the moderators.

Why is it so hard for some of you on here to abide by a moderators ruling?

Is to hard to understand?

[plugger66]

so technically then a prev username is open slather to mock and call a peanut?

i mean if that person, ie username, is no longer posting here then its a third party not associated with the site correct?

if it is directed at someone who has specifically asked not to be called that you will get reported and if you are a recidivist you will get warned by the moderators.

Why is it so hard for some of you on here to abide by a moderators ruling?

Is to hard to understand?

He does have a point though BM. If out of the blue and not directed at anyone and he says the poster who used to post another another name is a fruitloop then surely no warning can be given.

[BackFromUSA]

so technically then a prev username is open slather to mock and call a peanut?

i mean if that person, ie username, is no longer posting here then its a third party not associated with the site correct?

NO.

Because it is not a 3rd party.

It is the same party under a different name.

Simple to understand like this - are Beau Wilkes and Beau Maister 2 people or the same person?

Simple answer is SAME PERSON and same legal entity.

He simply has chosen to go by a different name.

By law his assets, liabilities and his criminal record go with him - even in a name change.

BUT by law those assets and liabilities (and criminal record) gets transferred to the new name. The paperwork on this stuff is crazy huge but necessary.

BUT for an example any NEW legal action on old crimes (committed under old name) will be charged and prosecuted under the new name with reference to the old name ONLY if it was required to establish relationship with another legal entity, otherwise the persons name at the time of the criminal act is a mere fact stated and confirmed and everything proceeds under the new name. In court they will be addressed by their name as it is now.

Not that i am saying that beau has committed a crime ... just using an example name that we can all relate to

[Dave McNamara]

so technically then a prev username is open slather to mock and call a peanut?

i mean if that person, ie username, is no longer posting here then its a third party not associated with the site correct?

NO.

Because it is not a 3rd party.

It is the same party under a different name.

Simple to understand like this - are Beau Wilkes and Beau Maister 2 people or the same person?

Simple answer is SAME PERSON and same legal entity.

He simply has chosen to go by a different name.

By law his assets, liabilities and his criminal record go with him - even in a name change.

BUT by law those assets and liabilities (and criminal record) gets transferred to the new name. The paperwork on this stuff is crazy huge but necessary.

BUT for an example any NEW legal action on old crimes (committed under old name) will be charged and prosecuted under the new name with reference to the old name ONLY if it was required to establish relationship with another legal entity, otherwise the persons name at the time of the criminal act is a mere fact stated and confirmed and everything proceeds under the new name. In court they will be addressed by their name as it is now.

Not that i am saying that beau has committed a crime ... just using an example name that we can all relate to

Hi Simon, "Not that i am saying that ___ has committed a crime ... just using an example ___ that we can all relate to..."

If the "SAME PERSON and same legal entity" was to post under two different aliases... are they still the "SAME PERSON and same legal entity"?

Re BBBBeau... "By law his assets, liabilities and his criminal record go with him - even in a name change." Would that also include Beau's thoughts and opinions as previously expressed, what about, say, his on-line posting record...?

[plugger66]

so technically then a prev username is open slather to mock and call a peanut?

i mean if that person, ie username, is no longer posting here then its a third party not associated with the site correct?

NO.

Because it is not a 3rd party.

It is the same party under a different name.

Simple to understand like this - are Beau Wilkes and Beau Maister 2 people or the same person?

Simple answer is SAME PERSON and same legal entity.

He simply has chosen to go by a different name.

By law his assets, liabilities and his criminal record go with him - even in a name change.

BUT by law those assets and liabilities (and criminal record) gets transferred to the new name. The paperwork on this stuff is crazy huge but necessary.

BUT for an example any NEW legal action on old crimes (committed under old name) will be charged and prosecuted under the new name with reference to the old name ONLY if it was required to establish relationship with another legal entity, otherwise the persons name at the time of the criminal act is a mere fact stated and confirmed and everything proceeds under the new name. In court they will be addressed by their name as it is now.

Not that i am saying that beau has committed a crime ... just using an example name that we can all relate to

So that means if we have a topic where the previous nic commented on it and its relevant and not baiting we have every right to bump the topic and sat to the current nic this were your thoughts previously? Im sure the person under the new nic has said he is different to the old nic. he doesnt do things that the old nic did for example no one is on ignore.

I wouldnt expect a warning for bumping an old thread if relevant and not baiting. And that will mean using his old nic so that people understand who we are talking about.

[asiu]

that's also my view

the wind not blowing the moderators way today ?

... my view is that Linda make the best electric blankets
on the market.

<this post has been reviewed and a warning issued for baiting the poster based on the fact that the post has no reference at all to the issue being debated, it makes a clear assertion regarding the poster's character designed to aain a response, but also importantly referencing "linda" which is part of a previous "abuse and baiting" for which POQ received a previous warning. For the third time in 8 days (and thus just avoiding a ban), POQ has been warned under this rule>

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.

i see your enjoying yourself again Simon.
... dont get addicted.
Powers like that though ... sneaky little corrupter.

[asiu]

the real issues wont be answered in 1950's americanism ,
religion based bullyism or born to rule behaviourism
with its associated cronyism.

like the beautifully expressed discussion on bias
i linked to earlier , in an attempt to facilitate your letting go
of that warped behaviour
i present the following.

just the bottom two paragraphs ,
might help.

it'd help around here thats for sure.
You , i doubt.

Not really your style.


http://blog.transparency.org/2013/12/03 ... must-stop/

[Bunk_Moreland]

so technically then a prev username is open slather to mock and call a peanut?

i mean if that person, ie username, is no longer posting here then its a third party not associated with the site correct?

NO.

Because it is not a 3rd party.

It is the same party under a different name.

Simple to understand like this - are Beau Wilkes and Beau Maister 2 people or the same person?

Simple answer is SAME PERSON and same legal entity.

He simply has chosen to go by a different name.

By law his assets, liabilities and his criminal record go with him - even in a name change.

BUT by law those assets and liabilities (and criminal record) gets transferred to the new name. The paperwork on this stuff is crazy huge but necessary.

BUT for an example any NEW legal action on old crimes (committed under old name) will be charged and prosecuted under the new name with reference to the old name ONLY if it was required to establish relationship with another legal entity, otherwise the persons name at the time of the criminal act is a mere fact stated and confirmed and everything proceeds under the new name. In court they will be addressed by their name as it is now.

Not that i am saying that beau has committed a crime ... just using an example name that we can all relate to

So that means if we have a topic where the previous nic commented on it and its relevant and not baiting we have every right to bump the topic and sat to the current nic this were your thoughts previously? Im sure the person under the new nic has said he is different to the old nic. he doesnt do things that the old nic did for example no one is on ignore.

I wouldnt expect a warning for bumping an old thread if relevant and not baiting. And that will mean using his old nic so that people understand who we are talking about.

Why would you bump an old thread? Surely that is just to bait? If it is only brought up to ridicule and bait, expect it to be reported. Bunk_Moreland cant see any other reason than to be churlish, infantile and to attempt to bait.

[plugger66]

so technically then a prev username is open slather to mock and call a peanut?

i mean if that person, ie username, is no longer posting here then its a third party not associated with the site correct?

NO.

Because it is not a 3rd party.

It is the same party under a different name.

Simple to understand like this - are Beau Wilkes and Beau Maister 2 people or the same person?

Simple answer is SAME PERSON and same legal entity.

He simply has chosen to go by a different name.

By law his assets, liabilities and his criminal record go with him - even in a name change.

BUT by law those assets and liabilities (and criminal record) gets transferred to the new name. The paperwork on this stuff is crazy huge but necessary.

BUT for an example any NEW legal action on old crimes (committed under old name) will be charged and prosecuted under the new name with reference to the old name ONLY if it was required to establish relationship with another legal entity, otherwise the persons name at the time of the criminal act is a mere fact stated and confirmed and everything proceeds under the new name. In court they will be addressed by their name as it is now.

Not that i am saying that beau has committed a crime ... just using an example name that we can all relate to

So that means if we have a topic where the previous nic commented on it and its relevant and not baiting we have every right to bump the topic and sat to the current nic this were your thoughts previously? Im sure the person under the new nic has said he is different to the old nic. he doesnt do things that the old nic did for example no one is on ignore.

I wouldnt expect a warning for bumping an old thread if relevant and not baiting. And that will mean using his old nic so that people understand who we are talking about.

Why would you bump an old thread? Surely that is just to bait? If it is only brought up to ridicule and bait, expect it to be reported. Bunk_Moreland cant see any other reason than to be churlish, infantile and to attempt to bait.

Not all BM. A person may change there mind or forgot what they said previously. A person you know well has bumped threads previously. Maybe your response here is a perfect example on why a person may bump a thread. You are saying things like churlish and infantile but i can assure you that nic you know real well has done it previously. Not sure if it was to bait or not but it was done so BM how do you feel about it now that i have pointed out that another nic you know has done it before. Is it that the other nic isnt you so we can abuse the other nic or it is you? You are being as confusing as the mods seem to be. I still stand by what i said. banning the nic and issuing warnings for calling you a previous nic is more trouble than its worth.

[SENsei]

Does this Bunk Moreland character know Lestor Freamon & Jimmy McNulty. Avon Barksdale, known as AB, with his mate Stringer Bell, known as SB, and then Breanna Barksdale, known as BB, might want to avoid Bunk too.

Bunk is a good character. I am unsure as to why he has caused so much angst on here. Is it because he left Baltimore and then went to New York with Michael J Fox?

I have been on holidays and saw a terrific film starring Jon Hamm regarding a real life story about the first professional baseball players from India. It was called the Million Dollar Arm. I'll give a free bottle of wine to who could name for me the main character's name played by Hamm.




Seriously, all this discussion over a nickname on a football forum? Really??

[Bunk_Moreland]

Does this Bunk Moreland character know Lestor Freamon & Jimmy McNulty. Avon Barksdale, known as AB, with his mate Stringer Bell, known as SB, and then Breanna Barksdale, known as BB, might want to avoid Bunk too.

Bunk is a good character. I am unsure as to why he has caused so much angst on here. Is it because he left Baltimore and then went to New York with Michael J Fox?

I have been on holidays and saw a terrific film starring Jon Hamm regarding a real life story about the first professional baseball players from India. It was called the Million Dollar Arm. I'll give a free bottle of wine to who could name for me the main character's name played by Hamm.




Seriously, all this discussion over a nickname on a football forum? Really??

Hmmmump - giving a f*** when its not your turn to give a f*** eh saintsational?

[Bunk_Moreland]

Bunk is a good character. I am unsure as to why he has caused so much angst on here. Is it because he left Baltimore and then went to New York with Michael J Fox?

he actually went to New Orleans with John Goodman