[This Thread was commenced in the General Section, and moved here by freediver about Noon on the 9th August, 2016.  Mod.]


Is this abuse/personal criticism within the Rules, or not?  It does not matter who the poster is or who it was directed at.


Quote:

...you can be one-eyed, vacuous and vicious..

Here is the Rule:


Quote:

Personal criticism Do not post personal criticism of other members. Do not respond to personal criticism of yourself or other members. This is the biggest problem on OzPolitic. Too many members are easily baited into off-topic personal exchanges. If you participate in any kind of flame war you will be suspended, regardless of who started it or who you think ‘deserved it’.

Do not post personal criticism of other members.

Seems very clear to me.

Poll added.

great editing there :D :D :D

now why not put the full quote so as to put it in context?

John Smith wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 12:13pm:

great editing there :D :D :D now why not put the full quote so as to put it in context?

Completely unnecessary.  Those were the specific words directed at a Poster.  They stand by themselves.

Aussie wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 12:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 12:13pm: great editing there :D :D :D now why not put the full quote so as to put it in context? Completely unnecessary.  Those were the specific words directed at a Poster.  They stand by themselves.

bullsh1t ... you're just being your typical disingenuous self.

(is that abuse too?  :o :o :o)

John Smith wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 12:17pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 12:15pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 12:13pm: great editing there :D :D :D now why not put the full quote so as to put it in context? Completely unnecessary.  Those were the specific words directed at a Poster.  They stand by themselves. bullsh1t ... you're just being your typical disingenuous self. (is that abuse too?  :o :o :o)

Is the question in the OP too difficult for you?

Quote:

Personal criticism Do not post personal criticism of other members. Do not respond to personal criticism of yourself or other members. This is the biggest problem on OzPolitic. Too many members are easily baited into off-topic personal exchanges. If you participate in any kind of flame war you will be suspended, regardless of who started it or who you think ‘deserved it’.

OzPol has it back to front.  It's the obsessive baiting that needs to be reined in here, not the occasional baits/digs but the persistent and repetitive baiting.   Punishing people for retaliation when they are repeatedly being trolled is an odd way to run a forum.

Aussie wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 12:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 12:17pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 12:15pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 12:13pm: great editing there :D :D :D now why not put the full quote so as to put it in context? Completely unnecessary.  Those were the specific words directed at a Poster.  They stand by themselves. bullsh1t ... you're just being your typical disingenuous self. (is that abuse too?  :o :o :o) Is the question in the OP too difficult for you?

already answered in the relevant thread .....

now why are you afraid of putting up the whole quote in context? 

Because I want to know if those specific words breach the Rule.  Why do you struggle with that simple concept?

Aussie wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:

Because I want to know if those specific words breach the Rule.  Why do you struggle with that simple concept?

words? the rules don't apply to words, they apply to 'personal criticism' of which context forms a major part in identifying it.

I think you may as well shut the forum down if we cant criticise other posters,

whether the recipient takes offence is up to them.

It is a lot like the proposal to water down 18C racial discrimination act, the argument there being that we should have freedom of speech to say what we like and whether people take offence is entirely up to them.

As this forum supposedly supports freedom of speech and we see constant vilification of Muslims, Jews and Christians and most seem to say nothing about that, what is the big deal about a bit of personal criticism.

If it offends you PM  a Gmod and let them make a decision.

As a general philosophical position I prefer less intervention not more.  I would opt for modding only in circumstances where something is actually illegal to a degree that would put the forums existence at risk. 

As for abuse and criticism it is hard to codify without rendering a forum lifeless to a degree that posters will go elsewhere, over enthusiastic modding will kill a forum dead.  It becomes an echo chamber of favoured opinion to such a degree that even the favoured get bored and move on.

In a forum that debates political opinion accusations of stupidity, of being morons, etc should be water off a ducks back for those that participate in a forum where points are made and defended and attacked.

(PS, some clowns need to check what an ad hominem rebuttal is, cos all they do is make themselves look stupid when using it)

Having said that, there are some pretty disgusting practices on this forum which I have not seen tolerated on any other forum, in particular consistent insinuations of pedophelia and homosexuality if not out right accusations of homosexuality.  In my opinion such insinuations should not go unpunished, they are well out of scope of adding some insulting spice to a rebuttal to an argument.

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 12:31pm:

I think you may as well shut the forum down if we cant criticise other posters, whether the recipient takes offence is up to them. It is a lot like the proposal to water down 18C racial discrimination act, the argument there being that we should have freedom of speech to say what we like and whether people take offence is entirely up to them. As this forum supposedly supports freedom of speech and we see constant vilification of Muslims, Jews and Christians and most seem to say nothing about that, what is the big deal about a bit of personal criticism. If it offends you PM  a Gmod and let them make a decision.

You are entirely free to be as critical as you like, in the most colourful terms you like, of what a Member has posted.  There is zero need to then add criticism of the Poster.  Huge difference.

The Rule is quite clear.  Do not post personal criticism of another Poster.

As BO may be implying, get rid of the Rule if it is to be completely ignored.

I'd be quite happy with that, as I am well equipped to hand it out with the best of them.  However, there is a balance to be had, as a 'free for all' will deliver another dead Forum like elsewhere.

Aussie wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 12:54pm:

However, there is a balance to be had, as a 'free for all' will deliver another dead Forum like elsewhere.

I think quite the opposite!

The reason this forum survives is because it it not operated like a bloody nannie state with nit picky rules being applied all the time!

"All play nice or you will be banned!"

No leave well enough alone!

Let the offended complain to a Gmod if they are offended!

Black Orchid wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 12:19pm:

Quote: Personal criticism Do not post personal criticism of other members. Do not respond to personal criticism of yourself or other members. This is the biggest problem on OzPolitic. Too many members are easily baited into off-topic personal exchanges. If you participate in any kind of flame war you will be suspended, regardless of who started it or who you think ‘deserved it’. OzPol has it back to front.  It's the obsessive baiting that needs to be reined in here, not the occasional baits/digs but the persistent and repetitive baiting.   Punishing people for retaliation when they are repeatedly being trolled is an odd way to run a forum.

I am baiting by defending myself... go figure...



here is the full quote

really Cods, you just can't help yourself can you?.


Quote:

I agree FD is mostly absent, and has his own agenda,  but you need to understand that people don't like being lumped into some generalised target..  you know  Lefties and righties?  Libs and Labor...  I have more important issues in life than pollie BS. I have at times found your posts offensive and indefensible,  in many instances.. you can be one-eyed, vacuous and vicious, and this shows in your posts.  So blame yourself if you get suspended for it. Take responsibility for what you post, and stop thinking you are a victim of unfairness.

I am told that that is just an OPINION and not abuse


....
Aussie wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 12:54pm:

You are entirely free to be as critical as you like, in the most colourful terms you like, of what a Member has posted.  There is zero need to then add criticism of the Poster.  Huge difference. The Rule is quite clear.  Do not post personal criticism of another Poster. As BO may be implying, get rid of the Rule if it is to be completely ignored. I'd be quite happy with that, as I am well equipped to hand it out with the best of them.  However, there is a balance to be had, as a 'free for all' will deliver another dead Forum like elsewhere.

it is hard to follow and I am not talking about the rules... as we all make mistakes or interpret things differently    I accept that....

however I am being lambasted in public... I have had it spelt out I am the worst ABUSER... and or person with an OPINION depending on your interpretaion of the rules....

on the one had.. those comments were abuse on the other just an OPINION>...

its mainly for future reference.....just in case I slip up...

when it comes to abuse I am the worst.. who knows I may be the best at NOICE.....at least I can try,.

  lets make a request

that we at least be shown the post... or told why we are being banned.......if they are right and claim we deserve it... then show us so we do not do it again.....

if someone explains to me how I have hurt them or insulted them...  then at least I can apologise...if I believe they are correct... I did try that with someone.. but to no avail.....I do not know how anyone can undo what they have done on the forum......

an apology isnt enough and in my case a banning wasnt enough....

maybe I help to make FDs membership look good to advertisers I dont know... but why hasnt he banned me permanently if I am that bad.....

just tell us what we do wrong so we can fix it...I steer clear of people but that according to emma isnt enough...

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 1:24pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 12:54pm: However, there is a balance to be had, as a 'free for all' will deliver another dead Forum like elsewhere. I think quite the opposite! The reason this forum survives is because it it not operated like a bloody nannie state with nit picky rules being applied all the time! "All play nice or you will be banned!" No leave well enough alone! Let the offended complain to a Gmod if they are offended!

do you know what the difference is between abuse and an opinion red????>.....

can I call you all the names under the sun   and say its just my OPINION of you?....you can be offended but dont bother reporting it...


do you think its ok for a gmod to use  their own opinion of what is said.....without explaining to the person who either complains or is banned...

WHY they did what they did, or didnt do...


ok that may not be easy to understand... ::)

cods wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 1:52pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 1:24pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 12:54pm: However, there is a balance to be had, as a 'free for all' will deliver another dead Forum like elsewhere. I think quite the opposite! The reason this forum survives is because it it not operated like a bloody nannie state with nit picky rules being applied all the time! "All play nice or you will be banned!" No leave well enough alone! Let the offended complain to a Gmod if they are offended! do you know what the difference is between abuse and an opinion red????>..... can I call you all the names under the sun   and say its just my OPINION of you?....you can be offended but dont bother reporting it...

That's true


Quote:

do you think its ok for a gmod to use  their own opinion of what is said.....without explaining to the person who either complains or is banned... WHY they did what they did, or didnt do... ok that may not be easy to understand... ::)

Well the Gmod is given the job of the arbitrator and has to make a decision and I suspect if he has to explain his ruling on each occasion bedlam would ensue with everyone having their two bobs worth in opinions.

He could decide to give you a private ruling but with some that would still start a PM war with him.

So if I was the head honco I would leave it up to the Gmod to decide if he wanted to discuss his ruling but as a general rule "no correspondence will be entered into". That is he would read your PM and act or not act as he saw fit!

Quote:

Well the Gmod is given the job of the arbitrator and has to make a decision.....

Agreed.


Quote:

......and I suspect if he has to explain his ruling on each occasion bedlam would ensue with everyone having their two bobs worth in opinions.

Disagree, and that is because the Rules preclude revealing the content of PMs, thus, the matter of the explanation is kept private.


Quote:

He could decide to give you a private ruling but with some that would still start a PM war with him.

Mr Hicks has posted, many times, that a PM explaining any Ban is sent to the Member.


Quote:

So if I was the head honco I would leave it up to the Gmod to decide if he wanted to discuss his ruling but as a general rule "no correspondence will be entered into". That is he would read your PM and act or not act as he saw fit!

I look at it from the perspective of developing consistency.  Members ought to have a gauge they can measure against.  "I see Fred got kicked in the nuts for saying.....blah blah blah.......so I better not tempt fate."

If Harry got a ban for saying 'Boo', and Anne, who also said 'Boo,' not not get disciplined, then we have identified a clear problem with consistency.

Aussie wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 3:42pm:

Mr Hicks has posted, many times, that a PM explaining any Ban is sent to the Member.

I was actually referring to complaint handling rather than a banning, yes an explanation to the perp should follow a banning


Quote:

I look at it from the perspective of developing consistency.  Members ought to have a gauge they can measure against.  "I see Fred got kicked in the nuts for saying.....blah blah blah.......so I better not tempt fate." If Harry got a ban for saying 'Boo', and Anne, who also said 'Boo,' not not get disciplined, then we have identified a clear problem with consistency.

Again I was referring to handling a complaint.

If a Gmod had to give an explanation every time he made a decision , he would be driven mad by by nitpicking types like yourself Aussie, saying you said this three months ago, and something else some other time.


So no correspondence will be entered into would be my approach.

KISS principle again.

Quote:

If a Gmod had to give an explanation every time he made a decision , he would be driven mad by by nitpicking types like yourself Aussie, saying you said this three months ago, and something else some other time.

I would regard it as due process in the dispensation of natural justice that a decision maker be reminded of an earlier decision or earlier relevant comments.  Why are you wanting to protect hypocrisy?

Aussie wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 4:20pm:

Quote: If a Gmod had to give an explanation every time he made a decision , he would be driven mad by by nitpicking types like yourself Aussie, saying you said this three months ago, and something else some other time. I would regard it as due process in the dispensation of natural justice that a decision maker be reminded of an earlier decision or earlier relevant comments.  Why are you wanting to protect hypocrisy?

A good manager doesnt have to explain his every move to the office boy Aussie, that is why he is in charge.

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 4:23pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 4:20pm: Quote: If a Gmod had to give an explanation every time he made a decision , he would be driven mad by by nitpicking types like yourself Aussie, saying you said this three months ago, and something else some other time. I would regard it as due process in the dispensation of natural justice that a decision maker be reminded of an earlier decision or earlier relevant comments.  Why are you wanting to protect hypocrisy? A good manager doesnt have to explain his every move to the office boy Aussie, that is why he is in charge.

If he is a complete idiot, he will be held accountable by somebody, probably a Union.

And this is not an Office, and I acknowledge it is not a Court Room either.  The Members are what really counts, not the GMods.   Elsewhere is made up up almost 100% Managers, and zero others.

Members will react, perhaps with their feet, to what happens to them and to others at any Forum.

Aussie wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 12:09pm:

[This Thread was commenced in the General Section, and moved here by freediver about Noon on the 9th August, 2016.  Mod.] Is this abuse/personal criticism within the Rules, or not?  It does not matter who the poster is or who it was directed at. Quote: ...you can be one-eyed, vacuous and vicious.. Here is the Rule: [quote]Personal criticism Do not post personal criticism of other members. Do not respond to personal criticism of yourself or other members. This is the biggest problem on OzPolitic. Too many members are easily baited into off-topic personal exchanges. If you participate in any kind of flame war you will be suspended, regardless of who started it or who you think ‘deserved it’.

Do not post personal criticism of other members.

Seems very clear to me.

[/quote]

Well I think the rule is badly written.  It really should  say

Personal abuse.  Why?  Because there is a huge difference between criticism and abuse. All criticism is not abusive.
Criticism can definitely be something to learn from, whereas ABUSE is always a negative,  and Please note  I said  CAN BE...  not ARE.
So  the Rule is too vague to be easily understood. 
Quite rightly - context is important also.. so Aussie  your taking up the cudgels on this is pretty pointless,  but no doubt a bit of fun for you.. :)

The question was simple.  It related to seven,  but, relevantly, three words.  It mentioned no Member by name.

The words are clearly criticism.  They breach the Rule, which, as you say, needs to be fixed.

Aussie wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 6:13pm:

The question was simple.  It related to seven,  but, relevantly, three words.  It mentioned no Member by name. The words are clearly criticism.  They breach the Rule, which, as you say, needs to be fixed.

AHH haha ... wriggled out of that didn't you Aussie.

The rule is unworkable as it allows for personal interpretation, but I voted NO Not a Breach,  because  'the intention ' of the Rule is clearly aimed at personal ABUSE. Nothing wrong with criticism... as long as it is merited. :)

No it is not a simple question as framed by you.  One must take into account the context, and by denying that context you make the question an apparent 'slam dunk'.

It is easy to play with words,  and three words taken out of a longer post is simply trying to stack the odds in the favour of the positor of the question. So it is not a simple question, it is an unfair one. So much should be obvious to you. :)

Quote:

No it is not a simple question as framed by you.

That is the point exactly.  It is a simple question (relevantly) about three words.

Let's take it one step at a time.

Those three words are both criticism of a Member (if directed at one) and abuse of that Member (if directed at one.)

Next step would be to deal with context.

Criticism does not mean abuse, so I don't agree with the basis of your question in the first instance.
All the rest is pure sophistry..

Aussie wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 5:32pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 4:23pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 4:20pm: Quote: If a Gmod had to give an explanation every time he made a decision , he would be driven mad by by nitpicking types like yourself Aussie, saying you said this three months ago, and something else some other time. I would regard it as due process in the dispensation of natural justice that a decision maker be reminded of an earlier decision or earlier relevant comments.  Why are you wanting to protect hypocrisy? A good manager doesnt have to explain his every move to the office boy Aussie, that is why he is in charge. If he is a complete idiot, he will be held accountable by somebody, probably a Union. And this is not an Office, and I acknowledge it is not a Court Room either.  The Members are what really counts, not the GMods.   Elsewhere is made up up almost 100% Managers, and zero others. Members will react, perhaps with their feet, to what happens to them and to others at any Forum.

Freediver is the Gm Aussie, he will get rid of the Gmods if they overstep the mark as you well know from experience!

Sorry but your little ex lawyer opinion doesnt really count!

Tough titties!

Take it on the chin like a man!

There are expectations of the Global Moderator.

They know what they can or can't do. There is no secret set of rules, what is expected of them is to be fair and honest, treating others as they would want to be treated themselves.

Red is right, FD is the boss. If a GMod clearly isn't up to the task and needs taking out, that will happen.
It has happened before as some of you know.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 7:23pm:

There are expectations of the Global Moderator. They know what they can or can't do. There is no secret set of rules, what is expected of them is to be fair and honest, treating others as they would want to be treated themselves. Red is right, FD is the boss. If a GMod clearly isn't up to the task and needs taking out, that will happen. It has happened before as some of you know.

That is wrong Mr Hicks.  Big Vic has said that there are regulations/guidelines only GMods have access to.  The obvious point is to ask why the Members are shown what is not what is expected of them.

Yeas, there was ONE GMod who was defrocked.  All the others who are not here handed the towel in, Muso being the most obvious and perceptions_now being the most recent.

Annie A, Mozzoak are gone and Gandalf never bothers.

Tells me plenty.  There are matters needing attention.

shouldn't these prior few posts be on the other thread.?

Emma wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 7:38pm:

shouldn't these prior few posts be on the other thread.?

Which other thread?

Please explain Pauline!   ;D ;D ;D

Aussie wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 7:35pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 7:23pm: There are expectations of the Global Moderator. They know what they can or can't do. There is no secret set of rules, what is expected of them is to be fair and honest, treating others as they would want to be treated themselves. Red is right, FD is the boss. If a GMod clearly isn't up to the task and needs taking out, that will happen. It has happened before as some of you know. That is wrong Mr Hicks.  Big Vic has said that there are regulations/guidelines only GMods have access to.  The obvious point is to ask why the Members are shown what is not what is expected of them. Yeas, there was ONE GMod who was defrocked.  All the others who are not here handed the towel in, Muso being the most obvious and perceptions_now being the most recent. Annie A, Mozzoak are gone and Gandalf never bothers. Tells me plenty.  There are matters needing attention.

Not technically true but whatever.
I am sure you don't need reminding which person drove Muso insane with barrage of PMs and constant stream of posts directed to him on here.....

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 7:43pm:

Emma wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 7:38pm: shouldn't these prior few posts be on the other thread.? Which other thread? Please explain Pauline!   ;D ;D ;D

The Global Mod thread, which served to start THIS thread  yeah!!

Emma wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 7:59pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 7:43pm: Emma wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 7:38pm: shouldn't these prior few posts be on the other thread.? Which other thread? Please explain Pauline!   ;D ;D ;D The Global Mod thread, which served to start THIS thread  yeah!!

Thanks Emma!  :)

And Mr Hicks, I do contend that the Rule in question needs repair.

This thread was started on the basis  that a poster ( ::) ) who shall remain nameless was seen by Aussie as abusive, and which prompted him to start a Poll on this thread...  on the basis that the nameless poster breached the rule.. said Poster has pointed out that the Rule in question is poorly written and leads to too much interpretation, such that the Rule should be re-written to make it clear that the intention of the Rule is to prevent personal ABUSE, not personal CRITICISM.

I would think that it DOES need attention.

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 12:31pm:

I think you may as well shut the forum down if we cant criticise other posters, whether the recipient takes offence is up to them. It is a lot like the proposal to water down 18C racial discrimination act, the argument there being that we should have freedom of speech to say what we like and whether people take offence is entirely up to them. As this forum supposedly supports freedom of speech and we see constant vilification of Muslims, Jews and Christians and most seem to say nothing about that, what is the big deal about a bit of personal criticism. If it offends you PM  a Gmod and let them make a decision.

That's not an argument for free speech, and it never was.

It's a demand for hate speech and abuse to be legitimised and
avenues of redress available to those abused to be cut-off.

Emma wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 6:07pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 12:09pm: [This Thread was commenced in the General Section, and moved here by freediver about Noon on the 9th August, 2016.  Mod.] Is this abuse/personal criticism within the Rules, or not?  It does not matter who the poster is or who it was directed at. Quote: ...you can be one-eyed, vacuous and vicious.. Here is the Rule: [quote]Personal criticism Do not post personal criticism of other members. Do not respond to personal criticism of yourself or other members. This is the biggest problem on OzPolitic. Too many members are easily baited into off-topic personal exchanges. If you participate in any kind of flame war you will be suspended, regardless of who started it or who you think ‘deserved it’. Do not post personal criticism of other members. Seems very clear to me.

Well I think the rule is badly written.  It really should  say

Personal abuse.  Why?  Because there is a huge difference between criticism and abuse. All criticism is not abusive.
Criticism can definitely be something to learn from, whereas ABUSE is always a negative,  and Please note  I said  CAN BE...  not ARE.
So  the Rule is too vague to be easily understood. 
Quite rightly - context is important also.. so Aussie  your taking up the cudgels on this is pretty pointless,  but no doubt a bit of fun for you.. :)




[/quote]



hello emma....you can mention my name I wont explode....

here is the rule as clear as day... to me anyway\\

Do not post personal criticism of other members

as aussie said..


it is very clear... fd is being polite and saying criticism
where he could put the word "abuse"...

I believe he is saying one thing means the other.....

what some see as critcism others see as abuse..

the word to concentrate on is PERSONAL......


and the word being discussed where very PERSONAL>>>

ABUSE is very PERSONAL as well.. it comes in all shades but....... when there is no mistaking it....

other than the person it is directed at..

then it really is "PERSONAL" call it what you will... ::)

maybe fd needs to put it down as ...




Quote:

Do not post personal criticism and or PERSONAL abuse  of other members[/b

and then there can by no excuse..


what do you think of that idea?....

What I'd like to see is freedom of speech, not freedom to abuse.
It seems we're leaning towards abuse in all stratas of society, and there is nothing wrong with expressing honest opinions, but there is something VERY WRONG with enabling hate-speak.
How do we govern this? It seems to me to fall into the realm of ethical behaviour by individuals, and legislation can only work punitively in this regard. What is clearly hate-filled must be condemned, regardless of the intended victims, and to argue that it is OK to abuse those in other racial, ethnic, gender-based or religious groups is a retrograde step which can only lead to further breakdowns in society.
Be that as it may, we are heading down the slippery slope, here in Australia. That is clearly evident  when we look at the crimes our own government commits against refugees, child detainees, and other disadvantaged groups.   
I don't really understand why this is so. I only know I abhor it.
:( and I protest in against it.

Emma wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 8:06pm:

And Mr Hicks, I do contend that the Rule in question needs repair. This thread was started on the basis  that a poster ( ::) ) who shall remain nameless was seen by Aussie as abusive, and which prompted him to start a Poll on this thread...  on the basis that the nameless poster breached the rule.. said Poster has pointed out that the Rule in question is poorly written and leads to too much interpretation, such that the Rule should be re-written to make it clear that the intention of the Rule is to prevent personal ABUSE, not personal CRITICISM. I would think that it DOES need attention.

again it depends on the person at the receiving end.........some folks have called me a pommy bastard .. for the most part I laugh.. but then there is the one I dont laugh at I think of is as abuse..

when someone says I am "vicious."...that is something I have never been called before....and I think I have been on here about 10 years now..and yes I took offence   now had I reported you it would appear it depends on the mod I report too what happens....

is it vindictive.....or is it.....and opinion...

and where did they get this OPINION they claim from...

lets see the evidence....

lets see why it was said..

you see emma I do not recall speaking to you in that thread... in fact just about every thread.....yet you saw fit to post your opinion of me....

so what I did to make you do that I do not know....

perhaps you can enlighten me.

btw I do not recall ever saying those words to anyone on here either.... ::) ::).. and I am the worst abuser I have been told.. :(

cods wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 8:50pm:

Emma wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 6:07pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 12:09pm: [This Thread was commenced in the General Section, and moved here by freediver about Noon on the 9th August, 2016.  Mod.] Is this abuse/personal criticism within the Rules, or not?  It does not matter who the poster is or who it was directed at. Quote: ...you can be one-eyed, vacuous and vicious.. Here is the Rule: [quote]Personal criticism Do not post personal criticism of other members. Do not respond to personal criticism of yourself or other members. This is the biggest problem on OzPolitic. Too many members are easily baited into off-topic personal exchanges. If you participate in any kind of flame war you will be suspended, regardless of who started it or who you think ‘deserved it’. Do not post personal criticism of other members. Seems very clear to me. Well I think the rule is badly written.  It really should  say Personal abuse.  Why?  Because there is a huge difference between criticism and abuse. All criticism is not abusive. Criticism can definitely be something to learn from, whereas ABUSE is always a negative,  and Please note  I said  CAN BE...  not ARE. So  the Rule is too vague to be easily understood.  Quite rightly - context is important also.. so Aussie  your taking up the cudgels on this is pretty pointless,  but no doubt a bit of fun for you.. :)

hello emma....you can mention my name I wont explode....

here is the rule as clear as day... to me anyway\\

Do not post personal criticism of other members

as aussie said..


it is very clear... fd is being polite and saying criticism
where he could put the word "abuse"...

I believe he is saying one thing means the other.....

what some see as critcism others see as abuse..

the word to concentrate on is PERSONAL......


and the word being discussed where very PERSONAL>>>

ABUSE is very PERSONAL as well.. it comes in all shades but....... when there is no mistaking it....

other than the person it is directed at..

then it really is "PERSONAL" call it what you will... ::)

maybe fd needs to put it down as ...




Quote:

Do not post personal criticism and or PERSONAL abuse  of other members[/b

and then there can by no excuse..


what do you think of that idea?....

[/quote]


Hello Cods. The poster who shall remain nameless was actually ME.   I didn't use names because it isn't about personal abuse, rather about the right to speak freely, without abusing someone. 
I don't think criticism is always abuse. Although it certainly can be, if un-warranted, without merit or unfair and uncalled for. I personally think constructive criticism has taught me a hell of a lot in my life... without constructive criticism there is often no guide for people to understand how their actions or words impact, not only on themselves but on those around them.

In parentis loco.. as they say. We all have a duty of care to our fellows, and sometimes they NEED to be told they are acting inappropriately for both their benefit and the rest of us.

I don't think pussy-footing around the word abuse, and substituting criticism is the way to go. It is very much left up to the individual in that case. On the other hand, the word ABUSE is clear. Belittling, denigrating and undermining people with abusive words is not acceptable. I definitely agree with that, having been the target of such abuse myself, on this forum. It only hurts the abusers, in the long run, and developing a thick skin against these abusers is necessary to live your life in peace.

The emphasis on personal is necessary, because otherwise what is the point?  I know all my criticisms of our govt, for example , fall on deaf ears. Nevertheless I am free to do so, in order to vent my frustrations at the injustices in the world we see and hear about every day.
Hence I understand where you come from at times. I just feel sometimes you need to stop and think about what you say.

So anyway Cods, I am glad we can all have a dialogue about issues that matter to us, here on this forum.
To insist that all posts must be nice, and politically correct is to reduce the worth of this Forum, into inanity and worthlessness. People are not designed that way. And I am sure you wouldn't want that either.

Sometimes we must listen to the opinions of our peers, lest we become entirely self-centred narcissistic individuals.

A little criticism shouldn't cause a major meltdown. I am sorry that you were hurt by my use of the word vicious...  I do consider that sometimes you hit back at people in a nasty manner. I don't respond to those posts, but when you were saying you are a victim of abuse, and don't know why, I felt it incumbent on me to try to get you to look at how you sometimes respond, and perhaps help you to understand WHY you get the flack you do.

A bit heavy-handed wasn't I? But did it get you to think about it, beyond victimhood? I hope so.

Cheers, and I'll have a glass of red to you. .

Hmmmmmm .. having re-read my post it seems like I have taken two positions on the 'personal ' aspect.
  In the first case I believe that there is a larger aspect to freedom of speech. I mean that the concept of freedom of speech is greater than the individual.  It isn't down to what makes one person feel good, and the other feel bad, but the over-arching principle.
When you replied with your post, saying I can use your name .. that brings it down to the personal level, so I respond in kind.

On a personal level it does become about individuals.. on the larger stage it is about ethical principles.

Emma wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 6:42pm:

Criticism does not mean abuse, so I don't agree with the basis of your question in the first instance. All the rest is pure sophistry..

SO   Back to the topic...
I see you are unable to formulate an effective reply Aussie, so I take that as having called your bluff, because clearly you have nothing further to add. You digress into the subject of another topic.. the Global Mods topic, in fact.

Seems from the Poll you set up ,  that your view is NOT the common view. Seems you have put your foot in it.  :)

Oh well not to worry.  Unless of course you think I abused you by calling you out.  Better report me to the mods eh?

Sigh.. just when I was beginning to have a bit of fun too.

You are talking to yourself, (four posts on the trot) so I thought it best to leave you to your own devices.

My view will not change as a result of a Poll here for all sorts of reasons.  I probably should not have bothered with it.  Lesson learned

Those words, without shadow of doubt, breach the Rule about criticism of another Member as far as I am concerned.  If others reckon otherwise, all I can say is............I stand by my opinion. 

That would be three posts Aussie,  one in answer to Cods, the second to clarify that post and the third to get a response from you. :)

And you replied. Success all round as I see it.  :)

Of course your reply is gratifying as you say you have learned a lesson. BUT .. you maintain your position, as I would expect of you.
As I do mine. Criticism is NOT abuse, unless unwarranted, unfair or lacking in merit.  I repeat.. that the 'intent' of the Rule is to prevent ABUSIVE behaviour...  not critical comment. Else we wouldn't have a forum would we.?

Quote:

Criticism is NOT abuse, unless unwarranted, unfair or lacking in merit.  I repeat.. that the 'intent' of the Rule is to prevent ABUSIVE behaviour...  not critical comment. Else we wouldn't have a forum would we.?

Tell freediver.  The Rule refers to...........*drum roll*.........criticism.

So Aussie.... drum roll... YOU have never criticised any poster.?   ' Cos if you have YOU have breached the RULE.


Give us a break.  ::) ::)

Emma wrote on Aug 10^th, 2016 at 12:01am:

So Aussie.... drum roll... YOU have never criticised any poster.?   ' Cos if you have YOU have breached the RULE. Give us a break.  ::) ::)

I reckon I haven't, since I got a ban once.  After that, I was careful to make sure I criticised posts or conduct, not the Poster.

well good for you Aussie. You can feel happy about that.

You learned a lesson, it would seem.

I did wonder why you made a point of saying no names were mentioned. Now I know.  :)

But in this case ... we had a poster who was bitterly complaining about being called the 'worst abuser' on the forum, and saying the Mods ignored the complaints made by that same poster..

I was just trying to enlighten the person to the implications of their behaviour.  The possible reasons I saw for the position taken by Mods. In my own opinion. A fair criticism IMO.

As such I don't consider my post was abusive. But I agree that we can disagree, with no negative result.

Each of us has an opinion, and that is where we end up YEAH?  Neither right nor wrong.

Emma wrote on Aug 10^th, 2016 at 12:54am:

well good for you Aussie. You can feel happy about that. You learned a lesson, it would seem. I did wonder why you made a point of saying no names were mentioned. Now I know.  :) But in this case ... we had a poster who was bitterly complaining about being called the 'worst abuser' on the forum, and saying the Mods ignored the complaints made by that same poster.. I was just trying to enlighten the person to the implications of their behaviour.  The possible reasons I saw for the position taken by Mods. In my own opinion. A fair criticism IMO. As such I don't consider my post was abusive. But I agree that we can disagree, with no negative result. Each of us has an opinion, and that is where we end up YEAH?  Neither right nor wrong.

absolutely I dont mind you mentioning my name I am not that touchy....not everyone follows these threads.. and I wouldnt want anyone else getting the "credit"..

I just think this is all a bit weird.. and hopefully fd will have the answer that will satisfy everyone...

aussie is a huge stickler for everything being correct and present...one of his quirks.....but in the long run he is correct as well... but then arent we all...

I would like to correct a misconception about me and the words "worst abuser"... those words were thrown at me on more than one occasion on different threads...when speaking on polsux... I have always been led to believe its NO HOLDS BARRED.... ::) ::)

maybe that another that needs sorting out..

anyway it does tend to get aggressive...as one would expect and yes I have been guilt of claiming lefties must enjoy seeing people drown when they blame libs for all the ills of this country.....and when they claim the pinkbatts was a raging success I remind them of 4 young men that died...

sadly all those people dying IS FACT... I am not making it up...and yes it did all happen on Labors watch....

and yes I did say some thing about the drownings to a poster who objected...I was banned and when I returned I apologised.. it was not enough for this poster....to my knowledge ...I have not mentioned those instances  again to anyone..[link if I am wrong].

I have not spoken directly to the person since I reported him for abuse....and I have no intentions of spoiling his time on here so I will not be speaking to him.. I am happy with that...

however I was not happy with the fact that not only did he tell FD when he applied for the gmod position...that he had trouble with me... and he explained all the agro he had with with me... he also posted it on the forum for everyone to read......how I am in his opinion the worst abuser on here...

emma as far as I know I have had one run in with this gmod...ONE....yet he has told everyone he has huge problems with me...BEING THE WORST ABUSER..

as I am accused!

is the reason I posted the question to the mods about your post......

just what is personal abuse....and when is it personal...when I the receiver or when the gmod decides.... ::) ::)?????????..

I still dont know.. ;D ;D

btw you asked if I had learnt anything from your criticism.....of course.....I never thought of myself as being vicious....really not the way I am... but its how its perceived isnt it?.. so yes I have taken it all on board....

I neither use the words shortarse....or drownings or roof cavities anymore.....at least give me a break I am trying....

but I wont forget being called the worst abuser...


I have also been told I was a sh.t stirrer when I was on feedback...the reason I am banned from there...


not a good week for cods..

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 4:15pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 9th, 2016 at 3:42pm: Mr Hicks has posted, many times, that a PM explaining any Ban is sent to the Member. I was actually referring to complaint handling rather than a banning, yes an explanation to the perp should follow a banning Quote: I look at it from the perspective of developing consistency.  Members ought to have a gauge they can measure against.  "I see Fred got kicked in the nuts for saying.....blah blah blah.......so I better not tempt fate." If Harry got a ban for saying 'Boo', and Anne, who also said 'Boo,' not not get disciplined, then we have identified a clear problem with consistency. Again I was referring to handling a complaint. If a Gmod had to give an explanation every time he made a decision , he would be driven mad by by nitpicking types like yourself Aussie, saying you said this three months ago, and something else some other time. So no correspondence will be entered into would be my approach. KISS principle again.

Just a bit of an additional comment on this Aussie.

I am not suggesting a Gmod should never correspond with the complainer about the complaint.

I am sure a reply such as "I will follow that up with xxxx" or "Thanks for that cod" or similar is reasonable.

I just dont this he should have to go into details of how he handles complaints with other than  Gmods or freediver.

Emma wrote on Aug 9^th, 2016 at 9:46pm:

Hmmmmmm .. having re-read my post it seems like I have taken two positions on the 'personal ' aspect.   In the first case I believe that there is a larger aspect to freedom of speech. I mean that the concept of freedom of speech is greater than the individual.  It isn't down to what makes one person feel good, and the other feel bad, but the over-arching principle. When you replied with your post, saying I can use your name .. that brings it down to the personal level, so I respond in kind. On a personal level it does become about individuals.. on the larger stage it is about ethical principles.

I am all for FOS....its paramount to any system...and for goodness sakes we are not children....

we should be able to say to each other thats not nice I prefer you didnt speak to me like that..

instead we are encouraged to report everything to the head monitor.....

maybe the word POLITE needs to come into it somehow....just a thought...

I havent reported anyone for a while and when I have done so its usually to fd..


red we were told by fd when the ban is over we can ask for the reason...

for most of us... we know the reason,......but sometimes it escapes us...

if you are going to be annoying or childish and argue like aussie can do...well dont expect to get an answer....

I dont think I annoy the gmods... [with PMs].but if I did I would expect them to PM me and not announce it on the threads.........thats why I say my piece in the open as I know there are annoying people on here... and they would drive me bonkers.....I have a feeling thats one of the reasons percy gave it away...nagging..

so come on members dont bicker about rubbish  and make gmods lives miserable all because someone doesnt see your point of view.......or you are nit picking about the wording of  rules....

accept the position...and stop twisting it..

Ya see, cods, this is where you come to grief.


Quote:

if you are going to be annoying or childish and argue like aussie can do...

(a)  There was zero point in bringing my name into your Post.

(b)  You have no idea what I say in PM exchanges with GMods, and so, you just proceed to make it up.

Aussie wrote on Aug 10^th, 2016 at 11:38am:

Ya see, cods, this is where you come to grief. Quote: if you are going to be annoying or childish and argue like aussie can do... (a)  There was zero point in bringing my name into your Post. (b)  You have no idea what I say in PM exchanges with GMods, and so, you just proceed to make it up.

true only whats been said on here and you yourself have said you are blocked.....from PM.. so it speaks for itself... well to me it does..

I do not PM the mods......simple as that....only when I report someone....

thats the whole point......honestly aussie you do go on   .asking the same question   over and over...

you practically demand answers..... were you banned from Pm to percy??....I mean if I start a thread.. no one has to read it or answer it..

but PMs are a bit different.. well I think so...

I ,am just thinking if there is less nit picking maybe we would get a few answers.....which will make a lot of people happy.....thats all..

you dont agree you can nag aussie?????

cods wrote on Aug 10^th, 2016 at 11:56am:

Aussie wrote on Aug 10th, 2016 at 11:38am: Ya see, cods, this is where you come to grief. Quote: if you are going to be annoying or childish and argue like aussie can do... (a)  There was zero point in bringing my name into your Post. (b)  You have no idea what I say in PM exchanges with GMods, and so, you just proceed to make it up. true only whats been said on here and you yourself have said you are blocked.....from PM.. so it speaks for itself... well to me it does.. I do not PM the mods......simple as that....only when I report someone.... thats the whole point......honestly aussie you do go on   .asking the same question   over and over... you practically demand answers..... were you banned from Pm to percy??....I mean if I start a thread.. no one has to read it or answer it.. but PMs are a bit different.. well I think so... I ,am just thinking if there is less nit picking maybe we would get a few answers.....which will make a lot of people happy.....thats all.. you dont agree you can nag aussie?????

I was not the only person P_N blocked, Herbert also, for example.  There were others who also complained about it.  I have no idea why he did that, but I did then make the relevant comment that he can hardly do his job if Members are unable to send him a PM.

cods, I'm not going to debate what is obvious.  You did not need to bring my name into your post.   Doing so was only ever going to have one outcome.  This. ^^^^^^

Aussie wrote on Aug 10^th, 2016 at 12:03pm:

cods wrote on Aug 10th, 2016 at 11:56am: Aussie wrote on Aug 10th, 2016 at 11:38am: Ya see, cods, this is where you come to grief. Quote: if you are going to be annoying or childish and argue like aussie can do... (a)  There was zero point in bringing my name into your Post. (b)  You have no idea what I say in PM exchanges with GMods, and so, you just proceed to make it up. true only whats been said on here and you yourself have said you are blocked.....from PM.. so it speaks for itself... well to me it does.. I do not PM the mods......simple as that....only when I report someone.... thats the whole point......honestly aussie you do go on   .asking the same question   over and over... you practically demand answers..... were you banned from Pm to percy??....I mean if I start a thread.. no one has to read it or answer it.. but PMs are a bit different.. well I think so... I ,am just thinking if there is less nit picking maybe we would get a few answers.....which will make a lot of people happy.....thats all.. you dont agree you can nag aussie????? I was not the only person P_N blocked, Herbert also, for example.  There were others who also complained about it.  I have no idea why he did that, but I did then make the relevant comment that he can hardly do his job if Members are unable to send him a PM. cods, I'm not going to debate what is obvious.  You did not need to bring my name into your post.   Doing so was only ever going to have one outcome.  This. ^^^^^^

oh i realised that!! ::) ::) ::)what was I thinking?

I will be honest I do not know what ^^^^^^^^ means...

but its neither here nor there... you were the only person I saw claiming you had been blocked from PMs..I knew it would get this response    you do it all the time.. always excuses.. or blaming someone else...

all I know is...you nag.. you have nagged me on PMs..you probably dont think you have... but yes you have..

I have never had a PM from herb...am I lucky I will ask perc next time hes on..

in the mean time stop telling me you are not a person who pushes buttons...because you are....

I didnt say that was bad I just said if members who nit pick didnt annoy the mods..so much maybe we would get some answers...thats all...

have a look at some of your posts aussie  on this thread just for example.. you will never ever let the other person win an argument....you are right no matter what....and if they insists thats when you get a wee bit personal..

you started this thread aussie...and when someone replies you want to dismiss it as ..

who the hell do you think you are type of thing....

and no not everyone is agreeing with you..in the same way you wish them too...

.and guess what sometimes they do have a point... if we could all agree on one simple thing maybe we would get taken seriously instead of dismissed..

as it is this is now another aussie thread...

btw I got the impression percy wasnt well and had a few personal problems....and lots of whinging would have worn him down...thats all.

he or any mod shouldnt have to ask to be left alone.. this isnt a matter of life and death... YET.