Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Site guidelines, Announcements, Problems and Suggestions
Brownbear

What is a forum for?

I'd like to raise a concern about the use of language such as 'sluts' and the many references to drinking to excess, and to drug-taking that are made on the forum. In light of the timely reminder about naughty words, is there any guidance on this?

The rules on the watershed are for 'under-15s', so is it to be frowned on to discuss, say, the ethics of punishing sexual criminals which would seem to fall foul of the code? The enjoyment of riotous drunkenness? War, for example, is a very upsetting topic, ought that to be avoided? Avoiding swearing may be easier for some than others, but what about what may be termed 'offensive ideas'?

And when people say pre-watershed and therefore under-15s, are we talking Telly-Tubby levels of non-offensiveness, or East Enders levels, in which case few depths of human depravity might not be plumbed. I normally find DS quite a relaxing place, but I'm now feeling that there is a seething mass of offended people out there, their evenings ruined by some unintended aside. I am asking merely for information.
jema

As I'm sure you know we manage to tackle just about every issue going on downsizer and do it pretty well most of the time.

There are not really more restrictions now than before, we simply remind people that there is no need to deliberately offend.
Brownbear

jema wrote:
As I'm sure you know we manage to tackle just about every issue going on downsizer and do it pretty well most of the time.

There are not really more restrictions now than before, we simply remind people that there is no need to deliberately offend.



I was more asking about accidental offence. I mean, if you used the word 'slut' in most places, it's taken to mean a woman of very loose sexual morals, and I know a lot of women who object very strongly to the mere use of the term.

Perhaps more thought needed here.
Snowball

These things are not easily definable. I agree with things like sluts, but on the whole that has been changed to MDS now.
Common sense is what is required, although that is a commodity that is sometimes lacking.
We are not going to produce a list either.
There are one or two obvious rules though. Anything that is posted with the clear aim of being deliberately offensive will be removed.
We will not tolerate anything illegal either.
Apart from that, the mods look at the site as a whole. There was a period when, for slightly mischievous reasons, as well as genuine ones, the latest posts was filled with drug related threads.
The mods decided that this was not what we wanted people to think that the site was about, so locked some, merged some, and possibly deleted one.
The guiding principle, apart from be excellent to each other is the impression created by some one coming across us for the first time.
Many people get a lot of this site, information, support and business opportunities. We want it to grow, and continue being a pleasant and informative site, that is the only reason for guidelines. On the whole, we can trust the membership to work on those principles too. The occasional troll is dealt with, spammers don't stand a chance because of the sterling work of one or two mods.
Anything else, can be dealt with and discussed with the mods, hopefully in a mature way.
Jean
Brownbear

I think this translates as the main intention being that this is a forum for serious matters, and that anything else, for example humour, irreverence etc, ought not to obscure that, and that there are other places on the internet more suitable for all that sort of thing.

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable guiding principle to me.
lettucewoman

Brownbear wrote:
I think this translates as the main intention being that this is a forum for serious matters, and that anything else, for example humour, irreverence etc, ought not to obscure that, and that there are other places on the internet more suitable for all that sort of thing.

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable guiding principle to me.



Sad Sad Sad Sad Sad Sad
Brownbear

lettucewoman wrote:
Brownbear wrote:
I think this translates as the main intention being that this is a forum for serious matters, and that anything else, for example humour, irreverence etc, ought not to obscure that, and that there are other places on the internet more suitable for all that sort of thing.

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable guiding principle to me.



Sad Sad Sad Sad Sad Sad


I wasn't suggesting that it all ought to be dull and boring, but that it seemed to be suggested that the useful resource was the primary intention of the site. 'Avin a larf is secondary to that.

After all, it's called 'downsizer' not 'chuckles aplenty r us'.
Silas

Brownbear wrote:
lettucewoman wrote:
Brownbear wrote:
I think this translates as the main intention being that this is a forum for serious matters, and that anything else, for example humour, irreverence etc, ought not to obscure that, and that there are other places on the internet more suitable for all that sort of thing.

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable guiding principle to me.



Sad Sad Sad Sad Sad Sad


I wasn't suggesting that it all ought to be dull and boring, but that it seemed to be suggested that the useful resource was the primary intention of the site. 'Avin a larf is secondary to that.

After all, it's called 'downsizer' not 'chuckles aplenty r us'.


Well, you could do what they did on the RC site and banned any chat topic that was not RC related.

That worked well. Not. Rolling Eyes
Brownbear

Silas wrote:

Well, you could do what they did on the RC site and banned any chat topic that was not RC related.

That worked well. Not. Rolling Eyes


I think they made the mistake there of letting the chat become the most popular part of the site, and of course it took over from the other sections in importance. Then when they tried to throttle it back, everyone got in a huff and left.

It may be very timely to point out that the resource part is the most important part of Downsizer, and the funny flippant bits should be just a minor sideshow. I thought it was a mistake at first and would just encourage inoffensive dullness, but the more I think about it, the more I agree with that sort of slant on things.
Silas

Whilst I can see where you are coming from, I think each person gets something different from this site, some people will only look at what is happening in the poultry section, others only read and contribute to the foraging etc. Chat is something of a common ground for everyone and, personally, I like it as it is, the moderation is, generally fairly good (at the moment!) and it is pretty much self policing. Does it matter if Chat is the most popular forum? Does it detract from the other topics? I don't think so.

My views on the swearing issue are fairly well known so I wont go into that again, but I would really not like to see this turned into a sugar and spice forum.
Brownbear

I agree that it can be fun, and I prefer it fun, but we're not responsible for the overall direction of the site, there are plenty more out there after all where one can 'act the goat' to one's heart's content. Lots of stuff - for example a thread on picking berries at the moment - ends up in 'chat' that more properly ought to be elsewhere, which detracts from the other areas of the site.

I think, on sites like this, there's actually a very good argument for not having a 'chat' section at all.
Silas

Interesting idea, but where would you and I go for our virtual punch-up?
sean

I don't think that anyone's trying to turn it into a 'sugar and spice' forum. Everybody has different views on what they're comfortable with (personally you'd have to drag some of the stuff that people post on here out of me using a set of pliers), what the mods and admins do is try to keep everybody happy(ish). It's generally a useful and pleasant place that isn't too full of internet nutters, we don't ban or moderate people just for the sake of it, most of us (apart from me) have better things to do than be on the interweb all day.
jema

I would miss chat, a "social side" is an important part of the forum.

We all have a responsibility to keep the site balanced though. Think of new comers to the site and if there are already a couple of offtopic arguments in chat, then resist starting another one!
Brownbear

sean wrote:
we don't ban or moderate people just for the sake of it, most of us (apart from me) have better things to do than be on the interweb all day.


Who's talking about moderating and banning? I thought we were just discussing overall tone and whether it's a good or bad thing to have a lot of wittering. In fact, I thought the new name of the thread gives a better idea to what strikes me as having the makings of an interesting and informative discussion.

jema wrote:

Think of new comers to the site and if there are already a couple of offtopic arguments in chat, then resist starting another one!


If I may say so, that is nonsensical. Given that 'Chat' hasn't actually got a topic and is just, well, 'chatting', hence the name, how the Devil could one be 'off-topic'?
Silas

What happened to the topic title?
Snowball

I would be very unhappy if we didn't have Chat and does it really matter. They are the most popular sections precisely because this is such a friendly site and people feel comfortable discussing and sharing news with each other. It is also the case that they are the two sections that, inevitably, get the most complaints and take up most of the Mods time. That is not a reason for not having them. I was simply pointing out that the method of modding, apart from dealing with complaints, is to keep an eye on the overall impression given.
That does not mean everything is serious. In fact, most of the time, the chat section adds to the interest and friendliness of the site.
Also, at one time, mafia dominated the latest post bit, so we created the games room so that only people interested needed to go there.
jema

I think you are misreading me, yes of course an offtopic argument on the site is likely to be in chat, the general point I'm making is that is there is a lot of offtopic to the site scrapping going on already, then have the decency not to start another one.
sean

Brownbear wrote:
sean wrote:
we don't ban or moderate people just for the sake of it, most of us (apart from me) have better things to do than be on the interweb all day.


Who's talking about moderating and banning? I thought we were just discussing overall tone and whether it's a good or bad thing to have a lot of wittering. In fact, I thought the new name of the thread gives a better idea to what strikes me as having the makings of an interesting and informative discussion.


Ahh, my response was based in part on your original thread title. I've no particular problem with wittering.
Brownbear

sean wrote:
Brownbear wrote:
sean wrote:
we don't ban or moderate people just for the sake of it, most of us (apart from me) have better things to do than be on the interweb all day.


Who's talking about moderating and banning? I thought we were just discussing overall tone and whether it's a good or bad thing to have a lot of wittering. In fact, I thought the new name of the thread gives a better idea to what strikes me as having the makings of an interesting and informative discussion.


Ahh, my response was based in part on your original thread title. I've no particular problem with wittering.


Well the title wasn't about moderating or banning either, just asking what people thought were acceptable topics of conversation on a forum like this, in view of the idea suggested by someone, I forget who, on another thread, that people set their tone by the TV watershed guidance.

And TBH if you're going to have much by way of humour, you're bound to upset someone, so lots of levity, wittering etc does have a direct bearing on that.
lettucewoman

I would be extremely sad if we didn't have our chat threads...I am one of those who occasionally post fairly personal stuff because I feel that this forum is one of the friendliest and most helpful and interesting on the net. I have been reassured , comforted and received lots of helpful practical advice, which has been appreciated hugely..I am fairly isolated here in that I left my friends to move down here with my OH and although he is the centre of my universe, getting another perspective on things from people who ahave similar interests to myself, not to mention the fact that i have met a fair few and enjoyed their company, has helped me cope. Perhaps I should stick to forums which specialise in helping, but I love it here, enjoy reading all the threads, even the ones about for instance chicken keeping which can only be a dream for me at the moment, love the occasional feisty threads, and don't want anything to change...if it aint broke don't fix it!!
Brownbear

Snowball wrote:
Chat and does it really matter... they are the two sections that, inevitably, get the most complaints and take up most of the Mods time.

Also, at one time, mafia dominated the latest post bit, so we created the games room so that only people interested needed to go there.


Couldn't you do that with the chat section then? A section that is declared to have a slightly more anarchic air to it would mean that, when the complaints come rolling in, you could just say, "well avoid that bit then and just use the rest of the site, which is probably more to your taste"?
marigold

Brownbear wrote:

Well the title wasn't about moderating or banning either, just asking what people thought were acceptable topics of conversation on a forum like this, in view of the idea suggested by someone, I forget who, on another thread, that people set their tone by the TV watershed guidance.



Well, for one thing, debating the offensiveness or otherwise of using "swear words" is clearly not acceptable. Beyond that, promoting illegal activities is usually frowned on. As is slagging off religious beliefs. Not sure about morality - one man's morals are another man's mushrooms...
cab

Brownbear wrote:

Couldn't you do that with the chat section then? A section that is declared to have a slightly more anarchic air to it would mean that, when the complaints come rolling in, you could just say, "well avoid that bit then and just use the rest of the site, which is probably more to your taste"?


'Sandbox' section type thing. Works for some sites, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work here.
lettucewoman

..................if it aint broke don't fix it!!


really.
cab

marigold wrote:

Well, for one thing, debating the offensiveness or otherwise of using "swear words" is clearly not acceptable.


Laughing
Treacodactyl

marigold wrote:
Well, for one thing, debating the offensiveness or otherwise of using "swear words" is clearly not acceptable..


I assume you're joking? Being helpful, debating sensibly etc, etc is all fine. When things start going round in circles and someone seems to just want to argue for the sake of it then things, very occasionally you have to admit, get halted. Seems more than sensible to me, perhaps it's just too sensible?

Take the swearing matter, it seems people at both extremes of the argument aren't happy so there's no possibility of pleasing everyone. Confused
Bebo

If the chat section goes, wittering is banned and silly and vulgar humour is being stopped then I better start looking for somewhere else to play Sad
Rob R

cab wrote:
marigold wrote:

Well, for one thing, debating the offensiveness or otherwise of using "swear words" is clearly not acceptable.


Laughing


Rolling Eyes Confused

Was it really adding much to downsizer? dontknow

Generally if you're in company and are asked to refrain from swearing you either stop, or leave that company, else you are deliberately being offensive, regardless of what you personally feel is acceptable.

A forum is for many things, usually based around something a group of people are passionate about. No doubt someone will start a swearing forum, if it bothers them that much.
Behemoth

Given we're a mixed bunch with mixed sensibilities, views and non-modal activities, the middle ground of general courtesy seems to be a way of a maintaining a pleasant online environment that can discuss interesting, off beat, contentious and controversial issues without it degenerating too often into a fistfull of expletives. For some reason I moderate my behaviour depending on the company I'm keeping. I don't talk to my work colleagues like I talk to my footy team mates on a beery sunday afternoon. I'm a bit old fashioned like that. I do the same in shops, bus queues and cringe worthy social gatherings where my mind is screaming 'run away', the magistrates, etc. I am not the centre of the universe, well some people think that, but they're wrong.
cab

Rob R wrote:

Was it really adding much to downsizer? dontknow


Wasn't taking anything away either, imho.
Gervase

I like the chat. It's a window onto another world and puts me in touch with my inner lunatic.
Jonnyboy

Unfortunately it puts me in touch with the outer lunatics.
sean

cab wrote:
Rob R wrote:

Was it really adding much to downsizer? dontknow


Wasn't taking anything away either, imho.


Given that you're probably the least sweary person on here, could you have a go just for once at accepting that other people's viewpoints are worth considering even if they're not the result of a double blind trial?
Behemoth

Jamie Oliver is currently swearing on Channel 4. Enjoy.
cab

sean wrote:

Given that you're probably the least sweary person on here, could you have a go just for once at accepting that other people's viewpoints are worth considering even if they're not the result of a double blind trial?


Happy to; I saw no evidence of the same courtesy being paid my own stance in that discussion.
Jonnyboy

Behemoth wrote:
Jamie Oliver is currently swearing on Channel 4. Enjoy.


1 minute in? the complete.....
Bebo

..............Bruv?
Rob R

cab wrote:
Rob R wrote:

Was it really adding much to downsizer? dontknow


Wasn't taking anything away either, imho.


But had reached an acceptable conclusion for all but Father Jack.
Jonnyboy

Laughing
marigold

Rob R wrote:
cab wrote:
Rob R wrote:

Was it really adding much to downsizer? dontknow


Wasn't taking anything away either, imho.


But had reached an acceptable conclusion for all but Father Jack.


I don't get the Father Jack allusion, but you can count me out of "all".
cab

Rob R wrote:
cab wrote:
Rob R wrote:

Was it really adding much to downsizer? dontknow


Wasn't taking anything away either, imho.


But had reached an acceptable conclusion for all but Father Jack.


Better to say 'leave it a while, lets see if anyone else has anything to say' I think. Contributors to the thread like Marigold clearly were left out.
Rob R

marigold wrote:
Rob R wrote:
cab wrote:
Rob R wrote:

Was it really adding much to downsizer? dontknow


Wasn't taking anything away either, imho.


But had reached an acceptable conclusion for all but Father Jack.


I don't get the Father Jack allusion, but you can count me out of "all".


If you don't find not swearing in the company of others/all acceptable I don't think you can fault Downsizer for that.
sean

Really. If you find the modding regime here oppressive then go and find another forum.
Rob R

cab wrote:
Better to say 'leave it a while, lets see if anyone else has anything to say' I think. Contributors to the thread like Marigold clearly were left out.


It was a very simple request, that has been made several times before, by the people responsible for this site. I am struggling to see why it is so important to challenge that request.
cab

sean wrote:
Really. If you find the modding regime here oppressive then go and find another forum.


I didn't say oppressive. I implied incorrect, in this instance. Theres a diference Smile
cab

Rob R wrote:

It was a very simple request, that has been made several times before, by the people responsible for this site. I am struggling to see why it is so important to challenge that request.


Personally, I wasn't challenging the request not to swear.
sean

cab wrote:
sean wrote:
Really. If you find the modding regime here oppressive then go and find another forum.


I didn't say oppressive. I implied incorrect, in this instance. Theres a diference Smile


Yep. And your inability to punctuate or spell gets on my nerves. I don't bother running a twenty page thread about it though.
Snowball

Can I suggest that any one who is offended at their "right" to swear being oppressed simply sets up a forum of their own where they can swear to their hearts content? Perhaps they could recruit members from the nearest play ground.
The only problem is, they would probably have to run the site, so wouldn't be able to bate, or bore mods to death.
Rob R

cab wrote:
Rob R wrote:

It was a very simple request, that has been made several times before, by the people responsible for this site. I am struggling to see why it is so important to challenge that request.


Personally, I wasn't challenging the request not to swear.


Good, then you'll be happy to leave it & respect it Smile Job done.
cab

sean wrote:

Yep. And your inability to punctuate or spell gets on my nerves. I don't bother running a twenty page thread about it though.


My lack of patience posting to an internet forum doesn't imply I can't spell or punctuate, it implies that I don't choose to spend the time getting such things right (I'll confess that getting such things right takes longer, so, go on, mock Smile ).

And it wasn't a 20 page thread, nor had it become rude, or insulting, or vulgar. Nor did I spot anyone seriously suggesting that we want more cussing here, which makes Snowballs response a little peculiar.

I wasn't planning on mentioning that thread again (and didn't bring it up here), but I'll confess that locking it seemed odd.
cab

Rob R wrote:

Good, then you'll be happy to leave it & respect it Smile Job done.


I thought I had been respecting the general rule not to ****ing swear?
resistance is fertile

Where did all this come from Shocked

Have I missed a load of stuff in which people swore badly?

I'm now wondering if I swear here without realising it?

Am I just blissfully unaware of a whole load of editing and Modding going on of filthy threads!?

Chat is great and people get hot under the collar on many other sections than just chat, Ive never noticed foul language being a particular issue, who is offended?
marigold

Rob R wrote:
cab wrote:
Better to say 'leave it a while, lets see if anyone else has anything to say' I think. Contributors to the thread like Marigold clearly were left out.


It was a very simple request, that has been made several times before, by the people responsible for this site. I am struggling to see why it is so important to challenge that request.


I haven't challenged the request. I have expressed my opinion that occasional swearing isn't a big deal and that being told I mustn't swear makes me want to (childish I know, but I'm a frail vessel).

I'm pretty upset to have been told so bluntly that if I don't like it I'd better shove off.
Rob R

cab wrote:
Rob R wrote:

Good, then you'll be happy to leave it & respect it Smile Job done.


I thought I had been respecting the general rule not to ****ing swear?


I never said you hadn't.
Brownbear

If people want to argue about the rights and wrongs of swearing, would they mind starting another thread for the purpose, and not ruining this one? I thought quite interesting before it turned into 'people complain too much' versus 'these are the rules and if you don't like it you should clear off elsewhere'.
marigold

Brownbear wrote:
If people want to argue about the rights and wrongs of swearing, would they mind starting another thread for the purpose, and not ruining this one? I thought quite interesting before it turned into 'people complain too much' versus 'these are the rules and if you don't like it you should clear off elsewhere'.


Well, to answer your question - a forum is for debating things. We are debating what is debatable. I think.
Gervase

Rob R wrote:
It was a very simple request, that has been made several times before, by the people responsible for this site. I am struggling to see why it is so important to challenge that request.

I think there are some people who will challenge anything and everything as a default position. It's what makes people brilliant scientists but a complete pain the in fundament in the real world.
Brownbear

marigold wrote:
Brownbear wrote:
If people want to argue about the rights and wrongs of swearing, would they mind starting another thread for the purpose, and not ruining this one? I thought quite interesting before it turned into 'people complain too much' versus 'these are the rules and if you don't like it you should clear off elsewhere'.


Well, to answer your question - a forum is for debating things. We are debating what is debatable. I think.


I actually agree with you about the swearing thing, but what I thought it might be more interesting to get at was the...

Oh, what's the point?
Gervase

cab wrote:

My lack of patience posting to an internet forum doesn't imply I can't spell or punctuate, it implies that I don't choose to spend the time getting such things right (I'll confess that getting such things right takes longer, so, go on, mock Smile ).

I fail to understand why you can't simply set your spellcheck to British English. The constant use of 'offense' 'program', 'defense' and the like by a supposedly educated person is as offensive to me as swearing.
Bebo

marigold wrote:
Rob R wrote:
cab wrote:
Better to say 'leave it a while, lets see if anyone else has anything to say' I think. Contributors to the thread like Marigold clearly were left out.


It was a very simple request, that has been made several times before, by the people responsible for this site. I am struggling to see why it is so important to challenge that request.


I haven't challenged the request. I have expressed my opinion that occasional swearing isn't a big deal and that being told I mustn't swear makes me want to (childish I know, but I'm a frail vessel).

I'm pretty upset to have been told so bluntly that if I don't like it I'd better shove off.


To be honest with you, I found that more offensive and childish than any of the swearing that I've seen on this forum.

I expect I'll be told the same for sticking my head above the parapet. Rolling Eyes
resistance is fertile

If Downsizer is a village, I have always viewed bits like 'chat' & 'does it really matter' as generally happening in the pub. (friendly pub, but definitely Pub)

Occassionally things get a little bit feisty or colourful and then someone suggests people have a thought for the other punters or to be quiet when they are leaving, and generally everyone does.

Dont change things please! and surely it cant be some sort of 'handed down' dictat, as it must be accepted that the Mods swear as much as anyone, so we all need to just have a bit of self control (and think of a more polite way of insulting one another when necessary Very Happy )
Gervase

Brownbear wrote:
...but what I thought it might be more interesting to get at was...

What is a forum for? I suppose it's a bit like an electronic bus shelter but without the pervasive stench of urine; people get to show off, write their names on the wall, shout at seagulls, have intense conversations and generally do the sort of things that people used to do in the real world in ye olden days. Except that there are no buses.
Or perhaps it's a village, where each of us is convinced that someone else is the village idiot.
Rob R

marigold wrote:
I haven't challenged the request. I have expressed my opinion that occasional swearing isn't a big deal and that being told I mustn't swear makes me want to (childish I know, but I'm a frail vessel).

I'm pretty upset to have been told so bluntly that if I don't like it I'd better shove off.


Your opinion has been noted, the situation on Downsizer was not occasional though, and it seems to have attracted complaints and not from me this time.

My suggestion of respecting the company you are in or leaving is not suggesting you should shove off, just an example of how & where to draw the line on the forum.
Brownbear

Bebo wrote:
marigold wrote:


I'm pretty upset to have been told so bluntly that if I don't like it I'd better shove off.


To be honest with you, I found that more offensive and childish than any of the swearing that I've seen on this forum.

I expect I'll be told the same for sticking my head above the parapet. Rolling Eyes


I think some of the moderators are feeling a bit defensive, and being rather abrupt as a result. TBH, if discussion of the 'rules of discourse' makes them that uncomfortable, they'd be better off just ignoring it. I don't think people are being stroppy, just discussing it, and the moderators shouldn't take that discussion as a personal affront. I'm sure that's not how people intend it.
Bebo

Rob R wrote:
marigold wrote:
I haven't challenged the request. I have expressed my opinion that occasional swearing isn't a big deal and that being told I mustn't swear makes me want to (childish I know, but I'm a frail vessel).

I'm pretty upset to have been told so bluntly that if I don't like it I'd better shove off.


Your opinion has been noted, the situation on Downsizer was not occasional though, and it seems to have attracted complaints and not from me this time.

My suggestion of respecting the company you are in or leaving is not suggesting you should shove off, just an example of how & where to draw the line on the forum.


I don't think it was actually you that suggested if she doesn't like the modding on this site that she should go elsewhere.
cab

Gervase wrote:

I fail to understand why you can't simply set your spellcheck to British English. The constant use of 'offense' 'program', 'defense' and the like by a supposedly educated person is as offensive to me as swearing.


You must surely have noticed that the number of American spellings I use is proportional to how recently you last bellyached about it? Smile
Brownbear

Bebo wrote:

I don't think it was actually you that suggested if she doesn't like the modding on this site that she should go elsewhere.


No, that was Sean, and Snowball. But I think they thought people were having a go at them personally. If I thought people were having a personal go I'd probably be a bit abrupt too.
Jonnyboy

Brownbear wrote:
I don't think people are being stroppy, just discussing it, and the moderators shouldn't take that discussion as a personal affront. I'm sure that's not how people intend it.


We've developed a keen ability to differentiate between the two.
Bebo

Brownbear wrote:

I think some of the moderators are feeling a bit defensive, and being rather abrupt as a result.


I think that is exactly what is happening. But its difficult for me to take seriously the people that tell me it isn't big or clever to offend people by using naughty words when they react so petulantly to someone who as far as I can see didn't do any more than state their opinion that they don't think swearing is a big deal. Neutral
stumbling goat

i have not read all the posts in this thread, life is too short.

but why is it that on any forum whenever the merest suggestion that language should be moderated provokes such intense reaction and in so many cases opposition? why not just go with the requested flow?

in the opening post dealing with unintended offence you mention that many people you know find the term you example offensive yet you use it. why?

a thread to discuss the issue of "causing offence" which is in itself offensive under the guise of being a discussive thread? tedious.

the response of the mods on another site i frequent was simple, if you don't like it, go and post elsewhere. mods do a great job for the most part, and should be left alone to do their thing.

i have seen little evidence of provocative posting here, but as in society generally there will always be one or some. and ds is no different sadly.

sg
Treacodactyl

Bebo wrote:
Brownbear wrote:

I think some of the moderators are feeling a bit defensive, and being rather abrupt as a result.


I think that is exactly what is happening. But its difficult for me to take seriously the people that tell me it isn't big or clever to offend people by using naughty words when they react so petulantly to someone who as far as I can see didn't do any more than state their opinion that they don't think swearing is a big deal. Neutral


To be fair, only after long threads going over the same things over and over again. As I mentioned earlier, people at both extremes aren't entirely happy. If we let people swear all the time then we'll just get threads of people complaining. The moderators can't win can they?
Gervase

cab wrote:
Gervase wrote:

I fail to understand why you can't simply set your spellcheck to British English. The constant use of 'offense' 'program', 'defense' and the like by a supposedly educated person is as offensive to me as swearing.


You must surely have noticed that the number of American spellings I use is proportional to how recently you last bellyached about it? Smile

Touche! Very Happy
Brownbear

stumbling goat wrote:


in the opening post dealing with unintended offence you mention that many people you know find the term you example offensive yet you use it. why?

sg


It's a bit hard to ask whether something is considered permissible or not without mentioning what it is. The art of non-verbal communication within exclusively textual media is as yet, sadly, in its infancy.
Gervase

Oh heck - we're going to start wandering into structuralism in a minute. The moment brownbear uses the word 'signifier' is the cue for someone to shoot him.
frewen

I am totally lost now Confused
Brownbear

Treacodactyl wrote:
The moderators can't win can they?


Well, at least you can resort to your private forum and have a good swear Laughing
Bebo

Treacodactyl wrote:
Bebo wrote:
Brownbear wrote:

I think some of the moderators are feeling a bit defensive, and being rather abrupt as a result.


I think that is exactly what is happening. But its difficult for me to take seriously the people that tell me it isn't big or clever to offend people by using naughty words when they react so petulantly to someone who as far as I can see didn't do any more than state their opinion that they don't think swearing is a big deal. Neutral


To be fair, only after long threads going over the same things over and over again. As I mentioned earlier, people at both extremes aren't entirely happy. If we let people swear all the time then we'll just get threads of people complaining. The moderators can't win can they?


No they can't. But they can't expect request 'to be excellent to each other' to be taken seriously if they are going to get in a strop just because someone doesn't agree with them (and has stated that they don't agree without the use of bad language).

I can't speak for anyone else, but one of the things that annoys me about this latest mod crack down on profanity is that it seems to have arisen as a result of people making complaints. If people have an issue with something that is posted in a thread why is it necessary to go running to the mods with a complaint. Why not just make a post in the thread saying something along the lines of 'I find the use of that word offensive would you mind deleting or changing it' or do it as a PM to the person that made the post. If you aren't happy with something you should have the guts to say it yourself rather than relying on someone else to do your dirty work for you.
stumbling goat

BB - you know exactly what you are doing. and a shrink would probably explain why.

it's a bit like the moment when something embarrasing happens, or something unsavoury occurs, and everyone knows what is being thought but no one actually vocalises those thoughts.

except.

there is always one person. a person who for some reason best known to themselves even if they refuse to acknowledge it outwardly, they know inside. who gets some sort of kick or buzz from, maybe a sexual hit from articulating those unspoken thoughts that all others are thinking, yet do not need to mention.

under the pretext of free speech, or openness, or some other false well trotted out excuse.

i have wasted enough time here.

i just think, leave the mods alone, or if you want to satisfy your need to behave like this, why not go elsewhere where it may be more readily tolerated*.

sg

* edited to add - but that would not be any fun, would it?
Bernie66

Some people dont have the personality to object publically. Some people are introvert. Some people need looking out for,
Thats just how it is
Brownbear

stumbling goat wrote:
BB

...

there is always one person... who gets some sort of kick or buzz from, maybe a sexual hit from articulating those unspoken thoughts that all others are thinking, yet do not need to mention

sg


You know what everyone is thinking in a given situation but you won't say what it is, and anyone who vocalises those thoughts to which you are somehow privy is getting a sexual thrill?

I think that is a statement which reflects more on the person making it than on anyone else.
Bebo

Bernie66 wrote:
Some people dont have the personality to object publically. Some people are introvert. Some people need looking out for,
Thats just how it is


Wow, moderators as protectors of the downtrodden innocent. Do you get to wear your pants outside your trousers too?
Behemoth

Bebo wrote:
If people have an issue with something that is posted in a thread why is it necessary to go running to the mods with a complaint. Why not just make a post in the thread saying something along the lines of 'I find the use of that word offensive would you mind deleting or changing it' or do it as a PM to the person that made the post. If you aren't happy with something you should have the guts to say it yourself rather than relying on someone else to do your dirty work for you.


I an ideal world yes, but it often results in a suggestion to take their oversensitive selves elsewhere. The fact it's even become an issues shows why mods end up doing 'dirty work'.
Gervase

No, we just get to wear pale blue helmets and get everything wrong. Wink
Jonnyboy

Gervase wrote:
No, we just get to wear pale blue helmets and get everything wrong. Wink


undo the elastic band.
Bebo

Gervase wrote:
No, we just get to wear pale blue helmets and get everything wrong. Wink


I would say it serves you right for going out in the cold without adequate protection, but as that could be considered as an offensive comment I'd better not.
Behemoth

Helmet? Isn't that on the forbidden list?
Brownbear

Bebo wrote:
Bernie66 wrote:
Some people dont have the personality to object publically. Some people are introvert. Some people need looking out for,
Thats just how it is


Wow, moderators as protectors of the downtrodden innocent. Do you get to wear your pants outside your trousers too?


To be fair, if you're a person who gets upset by what you find crude language, you're unlikely to be the sort of person to confront someone about it.
Brownbear

Behemoth wrote:
Helmet? Isn't that on the forbidden list?


Blue ones are probably OK, aren't they?
Bebo

Brownbear wrote:
Bebo wrote:
Bernie66 wrote:
Some people dont have the personality to object publically. Some people are introvert. Some people need looking out for,
Thats just how it is


Wow, moderators as protectors of the downtrodden innocent. Do you get to wear your pants outside your trousers too?


To be fair, if you're a person who gets upset by what you find crude language, you're unlikely to be the sort of person to confront someone about it.


RobR and a number of others seems to have been eloquent enough in stating their case against swearing in the public forum, so I'm not sure that's true.

In a way I feel sorry for the mods because I would guess that a fair few of the complaints come from people that don't actually have that much of an issue but are doing it to make a point.
Behemoth

Blue? Blue! Oh my, this torrent of filth.
Jonnyboy

Bebo wrote:


In a way I feel sorry for the mods because I would guess that a fair few of the complaints come from people that don't actually have that much of an issue but are doing it to make a point.


In fact, a lot of complaints come informally to mods that certain members have an affinity with. So yes, one of the roles of a mod is to look out for those who wont speak up for themselves. But are nevertheless impacted by the actions of others.
Mr O

oh god not another " lets winge about the Mods" thread? Rolling Eyes
Personaly, i take this place as I find it, if i didn't like it I wouldn't be here. And that is the rub, isn't it? instead of wasting time trying to change it why not find a place you are happy with. It's all a herd of Bullocks.

Note : capitals Used sporadically and miss spellings deliberate Wink
Silas

Well, in all the time I have been a member of this site, I have seen the 'F' word used only twice and never seen the 'C' word used. Mind you I don't read all the posts.

The words we are talking about here are not offensive to the vast majority of people most are not even swear words in the proper sense, but are now everyday words used by almost everyone in daily conversation and are certainly used in pre-watershed programmes on the BBC.

I really think that if people have problems with this that they have bigger problems than the mild and innocuous language used me my and many others on this site and by almost everyone in daily conversation. The words are never used in an offensive or personal manner.

Now, as it happens I will try to resist using these words. Not because of the risk of offending the sensitive souls that reside on this forum in their obvious multitudes, but because of the real problem that Gervase pointed out regarding the difficulty some net security systems have.

But I really think moderating this sort of thing to be pathetic.
Jonnyboy

Well there you go, I've been called pathetic for moderating the 'F' word and advising some politely of the change.

We try to moderate with a light touch, and we can't check every post. So some stuff gets through especially if there are no complaints. Therefore there will always be a low level of swearing on the site. At times the level increases to a point where people notice and make complaints, so we try to deal with it in a sensible way.

Of course, whatever we do some people will never be happy because they have the luxury of self interest.
Silas

Jonnyboy wrote:
Well there you go, I've been called pathetic for moderating the 'F' word and advising some politely of the change.

We try to moderate with a light touch, and we can't check every post. So some stuff gets through especially if there are no complaints. Therefore there will always be a low level of swearing on the site. At times the level increases to a point where people notice and make complaints, so we try to deal with it in a sensible way.

Of course, whatever we do some people will never be happy because they have the luxury of self interest.


Sorry Jonnyboy, I do not criticise you for moderating the 'F' word, I think that be fair enough - and you are certainly correct in that we have the luxury of self interest. It seems to me that there are a couple of people on the mod team who do not like the use of 'language' and think it appropriate to treat us like six year olds when we converse like normal adults.
Treacodactyl

Silas wrote:
Sorry Jonnyboy, I do not criticise you for moderating the 'F' word, I think that be fair enough - and you are certainly correct in that we have the luxury of self interest. It seems to me that there are a couple of people on the mod team who do not like the use of 'language' and think it appropriate to treat us like six year olds when we converse like normal adults.


To be blunt if you don't want to be treated like six year olds then don't act like one (IMO we don't treat people like that). You agree some swear words aren't acceptable so why can't you accept that others people might find other swear words unacceptable? A clear reason has been provided and it's something all the mods and members of staff agree on so not something to be paranoid about.
Silas

Treacodactyl wrote:
Silas wrote:
Sorry Jonnyboy, I do not criticise you for moderating the 'F' word, I think that be fair enough - and you are certainly correct in that we have the luxury of self interest. It seems to me that there are a couple of people on the mod team who do not like the use of 'language' and think it appropriate to treat us like six year olds when we converse like normal adults.


To be blunt if you don't want to be treated like six year olds then don't act like one. You agree some swear words aren't acceptable so why can't you accept that others people might find other swear words unacceptable? A clear reason has been provided and it's something all the mods and members of staff agree on so not something to be paranoid about.


Yes, I was waiting for that daft response from someone.
Treacodactyl

Silas wrote:
Yes, I was waiting for that daft response from someone.


What, common sense?
stumbling goat

Silas wrote:
Jonnyboy wrote:
Well there you go, I've been called pathetic for moderating the 'F' word and advising some politely of the change.

We try to moderate with a light touch, and we can't check every post. So some stuff gets through especially if there are no complaints. Therefore there will always be a low level of swearing on the site. At times the level increases to a point where people notice and make complaints, so we try to deal with it in a sensible way.

Of course, whatever we do some people will never be happy because they have the luxury of self interest.


Sorry Jonnyboy, I do not criticise you for moderating the 'F' word, I think that be fair enough - and you are certainly correct in that we have the luxury of self interest. It seems to me that there are a couple of people on the mod team who do not like the use of 'language' and think it appropriate to treat us like six year olds when we converse like normal adults.


can see your point silas. when chatting you alter your language to suit your audience as we all do. the issue here is that no one knows who the receiving audience consists of. and it may not be your target audience. and the conversation is out there, preserved, unless moderated or deleted or edited or otherwise altered and the audience continually changes. so i guess the aim is to cater for or consioder that whatever is written is suitable for the individual that is deemed most in need of protection?

sg
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Site guidelines, Announcements, Problems and Suggestions Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Home Home Home Home Home