desertsaint wrote:and here we all are then.
well, missing one.
Banning of Principle of Q'uo
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
"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?
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?
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
- matrix
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 21475
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 1:55pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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
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
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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.....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10598
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 7:04pm
- Location: North
- Has thanked: 1011 times
- Been thanked: 1055 times
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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?
"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".
As I said before, if someone is taking ongoing potshots at a particular target, then that context is also taken into account. Not sure what's happening with BFUSA. Reckon he's probably off on a business tangent. Can't give you any info re updates to site except to say that I know BFUSA has a site review planned for September.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10598
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 7:04pm
- Location: North
- Has thanked: 1011 times
- Been thanked: 1055 times
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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
Exactly the issue you're talking about re calling people spastics and retards was put out for debate and there wasn't enough push to warrant changing the rules. Stop blaming the mods. It wasn't our call. My personal opinion is that I also agree it's inappropriate.
It's a no-win situation with you. You complain about heavy handedness, yet when the mods take on board a suggestion from some posters about third party abuse, put it out to the forum to gauge support, ascertain the support level for a change and act according to the feedback received, which was to not intervene, you complain because the mods are not intervening.
Not sure what you talking about with no abbreviation of swearing. Are you referencing my previous post where I expressed an opinion about the swear filter or are you talking about the rules as they stand? Either way what you've written is difficult to understand. Doesn't seem to reflect the opinion I posted or the rules as they stand. Or are you meaning something else?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10598
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 7:04pm
- Location: North
- Has thanked: 1011 times
- Been thanked: 1055 times
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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.
It's also reality that not every post in every thread is read by the mods. We don't have enough time to do it. That's why the reporting function is there I suppose.
Re the scenario you've suggested where only reported posts get scrutinised I agree with you that the system is unbalanced because of that. The reality is that of those 1000 similar posts where only three are reported, the mods are unlikely to read all of them themselves and are to an extent reliant on posters using the reporting function to be aware of rule breaches. The only way around that would be to ensure that all posts are read by mods. It's not going to happen with voluntary mods.
Personally, if I see a post that is borderline abusive or could be interpreted as a breach of the abuse or baiting rules, I tend to wait and see what the response of the target of the abuse / bait is. If it's worth sending a PM to the poster to alert them they're treading on the line, this is also helpful rather than giving a warning. If I can find a way to navigate it without giving a warning, that's the best outcome IMO.
Once a post is reported though, it has to be assessed against the rules. It's also worth noting that there far too many reports IMO, that are not worthy of a warning...i.e 58 reports, 12 warnings. People do tend to use the report function as a political tool. When that happens and there's actually no substance to the report, it's takes time and energy to go through the assessment and response process which could be better spent reading the forum. As things currently stand there is no mechanism to prevent vexatious or vindictive reporting, except for the mods sending a PM to the reporting poster asking them to take their foot off the gas with it.
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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.....
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10427
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 713 times
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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'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).
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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..
Last edited by stinger on Thu 21 Aug 2014 1:02pm, edited 1 time in total.
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10598
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 7:04pm
- Location: North
- Has thanked: 1011 times
- Been thanked: 1055 times
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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?
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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?
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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.
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
- HitTheBoundary
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2058
- Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2009 9:00am
- Location: Walkabout
- Has thanked: 174 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
- Contact:
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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.
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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.
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
Matriz?...Is that Matrix's Spanish cousin?....is he a spastic retard?
..this post should be reported for unacceptable.....something?
Bakesfan finds it highly offensive.
..this post should be reported for unacceptable.....something?
Bakesfan finds it highly offensive.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.(Eleanor Roosevelt)
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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.
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
Reported for baiting.
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
SENsaintsational wrote:Reported for baiting.
ditto...for attempted bullying.....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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.
Unlike you who threatened HTB with mods. Stinger he is politely telling you to stop so why not stop. He posted first and you replied to him.
- Dave McNamara
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5815
- Joined: Wed 21 Sep 2011 2:44pm
- Location: Slotting another one from 94.5m out. Opposition flood? Bring it on...! Keep the faith Saintas!
- Has thanked: 98 times
- Been thanked: 106 times
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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's Dave, man. Will you open up? I got the stuff with me! -------Who?
Dave, man. Open up ------------------------------------------ -----Dave???
Yeah, Dave. ---------------------------------------------------------Dave's not here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOiG1hAr ... detailpage
Dave, man. Open up ------------------------------------------ -----Dave???
Yeah, Dave. ---------------------------------------------------------Dave's not here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOiG1hAr ... detailpage
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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...?
don't agree with that....the rules are fairly clear......if you break them, then you should get a warning...this whole thread has degenerated into a whinge fest on behalf of somebody who choose to continually break the rules.....no hidden agenda here...no bias.....as i said before some posters need to build a bridge and get over it.....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
- GrumpyOne
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8163
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
- Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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 just fell off my chair.......
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
- HitTheBoundary
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2058
- Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2009 9:00am
- Location: Walkabout
- Has thanked: 174 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
- Contact:
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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.
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
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.
Its a fantastic idea. maybe because i mentioned it earlier. Some people, not many at all, just report for the sake of it like a 10 year child who has his favourite toy pinched.