|
|
Post by Sio on Dec 4, 2018 17:35:50 GMT 1
Not up to speed on the Otium stuff but do the admins actually want these rules in place, or is it worth revising them?
You guys seem to talk as though your hands are tied, but weren't they introduced by one ex-admin on a mad one and left in place ever since?
|
|
cheesyhtfc
Steve Kindon Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 1,647
|
Post by cheesyhtfc on Dec 4, 2018 17:40:52 GMT 1
For the avoidance of doubt, the punishment for breach of rules is as follows:
"DATM DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES:
We operate a YELLOW and RED CARD disciplinary system - posters who are in contravention of the rules for a minor offence will receive a YELLOW CARD (a warning level of 33%). TWO YELLOW CARD offences (a MINOR RED CARD offence and a warning level of 66%) will result in a ban of one week. A further TWO YELLOW CARDS (a second MINOR RED CARD OFFENCE) will result in a one month ban. Finally, TWO more YELLOW CARDS (a third MINOR RED CARD) on top of this (6 in total) will result in a lifetime ban.
If you commit a MAJOR offence, you will receive a straight RED card - resulting in a ban of ONE CALENDAR MONTH. Any infringement following a MAJOR RED CARD will result in a lifetime ban."
Otium had recently been banned for 1 week following two yellow card offences.
The "Action Log" shows that we have taken some sort of action on around 25 occasions since June 2018 (around 1 per week). This ranges from deleting posts to permanent bans, but most are either yellow cards or deleting accounts of people who have already been banned and have tried to make duplicate accounts. For context, this week, we have had 16 posts reported to us.
The reason why so little action is taken, is because we appreciate that there are some topics stir emotions, that it is an emotional sport, and that things need to be taken in context and in the spirit that they are intended. We also give significant leeway on the OT board, where the topics can be even more emotive and contentious, and where people enter knowing that fact.
Taking things in context goes both ways. Of the 6 Otium posts reported, we collectively decided that, taken in context, 2 were a breach of the rules and 4 were not. That means that Otium should get at least 2 yellow cards. The discussion was whether one or both of those posts should result in red or yellow cards, but having regard to the fact that Otium had already been banned for a week (and so the result of either would be a month ban) it was a bit of a moot point.
As for the rules, whenever something like this happens there is a brief hubbub where a minority (not realising they are a minority) pick up arms and demand that the rules be changed or a ban overturned. A poll is often then started which (subject to a few suggestions for minor changes, such as implementing an "Action Log") overwhelmingly decides that the rules should not be changed and the ban not overturned.
In any event, Otium's attempt to rapidly distance himself from his comments, then to make a martyrdom post in an attempt to deflect attention onto the issue of "free speech", shows clearly (to me anyway) that he knew he had overstepped the mark. We didn't prompt him, and hadn't told him that he had been reported, or that we were discussing taking action. He knew he had gone too far.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of speech. When you join a forum, you agree to abide by the forum rules. A breach of those rules has consequences. We have been accused of being fascists, doling out unequal treatment to people. If we didn't apply the rules to posters, however popular they are, then we would be treating them unequally. The vast majority of people are able to use this forum, and engage in heated discussions, without falling foul of the rules. Just because you are a self-proclaimed intellectual, and you attempt to couch what you say in terms akin to "I'm only giving my theory", doesn't mean that what you say isn't subject to the forum rules.
In any event, for every person we have saying that we are too harsh on people, we have at least as many, often more, saying that we are too lenient. The fact that we get both sides suggests (in my view) that we are just about finding the balance.
|
|
|
|
Post by kennyk2 on Dec 4, 2018 17:41:23 GMT 1
Not up to speed on the Otium stuff but do the admins actually want these rules in place, or is it worth revising them? You guys seem to talk as though your hands are tied, but weren't they introduced by one ex-admin on a mad one and left in place ever since? No Sio, they were totally rewritten March 2018. We have to try and abide by the rules because without some guidance a rogue Admin (or 2) could cause real problems for everyone. OK I'll shoot from the hip, if we get another teams WUM on match days, during the game, but we always try to be fair and objective. Some may disagree. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2018 17:43:21 GMT 1
I understand that he fools some people into thinking himself an intellectual heavyweight but the reality is 80% of his posts are bollox, and most of his facts figures and claims can be discredited with 30 seconds research.
He does however keep the site going and creates debate. This place has few enough regular posters these days as it is.
A pardon with the caveat that he keeps that shit to off topic is my considered opinion (for what its worth). You could take the view that its not actually hatred and reverse the decision after review?
|
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Dec 4, 2018 17:50:16 GMT 1
Folk must be reporting him cos the admins tell us it's the only way to action any complaints. Sad fuckers. exactly like whenNick. got it too Nick, I realised that trying to stop people posting, no matter how little sense it made, or relevance it has to the topic, was really none of my business. My business it to ignore what I don't like or have no interest in. The only thing I object to, and will report, is when folk call each other C@nts on here. It's an abhorrent word, and has no place in our language. The rest of the stuff I can live with or ignore. Otium's ban, is because he's wound a few too many people up and I'm guessing he's the victim of pedantic reporting to the admins for making some fairly strong points on a few threads. Tis the season of goodwill, live and let live. |
|
|
|
Post by Nickhudds.UTT on Dec 4, 2018 17:55:46 GMT 1
exactly like whenNick. got it too Nick, I realised that trying to stop people posting, no matter how little sense it made, or relevance it has to the topic, was really none of my business. My business it to ignore what I don't like or have no interest in. The only thing I object to, and will report, is when folk call each other C@nts on here. It's an abhorrent word, and has no place in our language. The rest of the stuff I can live with or ignore. Otium's ban, is because he's wound a few too many people up and I'm guessing he's the victim of pedantic reporting to the admins for making some fairly strong points on a few threads. Tis the season of goodwill, live and let live. Exactly mate i fully agree, totally out of order. Nick gets insulted and called by many sad losers on here for something and nothing. Easy from behind a keyboard isnt it . |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Dec 4, 2018 17:56:43 GMT 1
Oh, and by the way, the first thing I'd have on the list of yellow card offences if I was that way inclined, would be making in excess of 10 posts about Leeds United a week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2018 18:00:50 GMT 1
Admins avoiding my question, does claiming a particular group has mental illness mean the claimant hates that group? And if so are all admins who voted in favour of this ban happy to publish on here, that 'otium hates homsexuals'
Also can we clarify whether or not straightalker was infact a ex admin of this forum
|
|
|
|
Post by niggled on Dec 4, 2018 18:05:23 GMT 1
Should not be banned, interesting poster. He has different views to many but it's a forum for debate. Ban the idiot who talks of himself in the third person or obvious wum,s like kongolo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2018 18:09:38 GMT 1
Should not be banned, interesting poster. He has different views to many but it's a forum for debate. Ban the idiot who talks of himself in the third person or obvious wum,s like kongolo. macca likes this proposal |
|
|
|
Post by niggled on Dec 4, 2018 18:11:43 GMT 1
Should not be banned, interesting poster. He has different views to many but it's a forum for debate. Ban the idiot who talks of himself in the third person or obvious wum,s like kongolo. macca likes this proposal You. Will also go in my book. What is your name |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2018 18:31:54 GMT 1
macca likes this proposal You. Will also go in my book. What is your name Don’t tell him macca |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Starbuck - Legend! on Dec 4, 2018 18:45:21 GMT 1
On the upside, by the time he comes back Billing will be worth another £5m!
|
|
|
|
Post by artysid on Dec 4, 2018 18:53:54 GMT 1
Don’t understand this “a post has to be reported to be acted upon” myth.
Not according to the Rules it doesn’t :-
“Administrators cannot guarantee to read every post, so please use the 'report post' function to bring attention to anything you feel violates the rules of the forum.” Clearly suggests admins are able to act on posts they do read.
Maybe it’s just become a convenient myth to allow some admins to abrogate their responsibilities?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sio on Dec 4, 2018 19:43:48 GMT 1
Nick, I realised that trying to stop people posting, no matter how little sense it made, or relevance it has to the topic, was really none of my business. My business it to ignore what I don't like or have no interest in. The only thing I object to, and will report, is when folk call each other C@nts on here. It's an abhorrent word, and has no place in our language. The rest of the stuff I can live with or ignore. Otium's ban, is because he's wound a few too many people up and I'm guessing he's the victim of pedantic reporting to the admins for making some fairly strong points on a few threads. Tis the season of goodwill, live and let live. Exactly mate i fully agree, totally out of order. Nick gets insulted and called by many sad losers on here for something and nothing. Easy from behind a keyboard isnt it . You literally pretend to be a 10 year old child from behind your keyboard. Works both ways. |
|
|
|
Post by Clark W Griswald (CAS) on Dec 4, 2018 19:57:57 GMT 1
Not up to speed on the Otium stuff but do the admins actually want these rules in place, or is it worth revising them? You guys seem to talk as though your hands are tied, but weren't they introduced by one ex-admin on a mad one and left in place ever since? No Sio, they were totally rewritten March 2018. We have to try and abide by the rules because without some guidance a rogue Admin (or 2) could cause real problems for everyone. OK I'll shoot from the hip, if we get another teams WUM on match days, during the game, but we always try to be fair and objective. Some may disagree. Is calling someone a c***t acceptable ? Surely that's a ban also ? |
|
|
|
Post by impact on Dec 4, 2018 20:06:16 GMT 1
Should not be banned, interesting poster. He has different views to many but it's a forum for debate. Ban the idiot who talks of himself in the third person or obvious wum,s like kongolo. Otium is the biggest WUM on this board. |
|
|
|
Post by kennyk2 on Dec 4, 2018 20:21:38 GMT 1
No Sio, they were totally rewritten March 2018. We have to try and abide by the rules because without some guidance a rogue Admin (or 2) could cause real problems for everyone. OK I'll shoot from the hip, if we get another teams WUM on match days, during the game, but we always try to be fair and objective. Some may disagree. Is calling someone a c***t acceptable ? Surely that's a ban also ? No it's a yellow card offence. YELLOW CARD OFFENCE - AGGRESSION / FLAMING
Personal aggression towards other members - it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with the contents of post in a passionate way, but please refrain from abusing the poster himself/herself. This is not acceptable.
Read more: downatthemac.proboards.com/thread/105988/datm-forum-rules#ixzz5YkE8PqqlIf it is the poster who I think you are talking about, they were given a yellow card. Read the Admin Log. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2018 20:30:32 GMT 1
For the avoidance of doubt, the punishment for breach of rules is as follows: "DATM DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES: We operate a YELLOW and RED CARD disciplinary system - posters who are in contravention of the rules for a minor offence will receive a YELLOW CARD (a warning level of 33%). TWO YELLOW CARD offences (a MINOR RED CARD offence and a warning level of 66%) will result in a ban of one week. A further TWO YELLOW CARDS (a second MINOR RED CARD OFFENCE) will result in a one month ban. Finally, TWO more YELLOW CARDS (a third MINOR RED CARD) on top of this (6 in total) will result in a lifetime ban. If you commit a MAJOR offence, you will receive a straight RED card - resulting in a ban of ONE CALENDAR MONTH. Any infringement following a MAJOR RED CARD will result in a lifetime ban." Otium had recently been banned for 1 week following two yellow card offences. The "Action Log" shows that we have taken some sort of action on around 25 occasions since June 2018 (around 1 per week). This ranges from deleting posts to permanent bans, but most are either yellow cards or deleting accounts of people who have already been banned and have tried to make duplicate accounts. For context, this week, we have had 16 posts reported to us. The reason why so little action is taken, is because we appreciate that there are some topics stir emotions, that it is an emotional sport, and that things need to be taken in context and in the spirit that they are intended. We also give significant leeway on the OT board, where the topics can be even more emotive and contentious, and where people enter knowing that fact. Taking things in context goes both ways. Of the 6 Otium posts reported, we collectively decided that, taken in context, 2 were a breach of the rules and 4 were not. That means that Otium should get at least 2 yellow cards. The discussion was whether one or both of those posts should result in red or yellow cards, but having regard to the fact that Otium had already been banned for a week (and so the result of either would be a month ban) it was a bit of a moot point. As for the rules, whenever something like this happens there is a brief hubbub where a minority (not realising they are a minority) pick up arms and demand that the rules be changed or a ban overturned. A poll is often then started which (subject to a few suggestions for minor changes, such as implementing an "Action Log") overwhelmingly decides that the rules should not be changed and the ban not overturned. In any event, Otium's attempt to rapidly distance himself from his comments, then to make a martyrdom post in an attempt to deflect attention onto the issue of "free speech", shows clearly (to me anyway) that he knew he had overstepped the mark. We didn't prompt him, and hadn't told him that he had been reported, or that we were discussing taking action. He knew he had gone too far. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of speech. When you join a forum, you agree to abide by the forum rules. A breach of those rules has consequences. We have been accused of being fascists, doling out unequal treatment to people. If we didn't apply the rules to posters, however popular they are, then we would be treating them unequally. The vast majority of people are able to use this forum, and engage in heated discussions, without falling foul of the rules. Just because you are a self-proclaimed intellectual, and you attempt to couch what you say in terms akin to "I'm only giving my theory", doesn't mean that what you say isn't subject to the forum rules. In any event, for every person we have saying that we are too harsh on people, we have at least as many, often more, saying that we are too lenient. The fact that we get both sides suggests (in my view) that we are just about finding the balance. there's less paper work to read buying a house than that |
|
|
|
Post by artysid on Dec 4, 2018 20:34:43 GMT 1
Should not be banned, interesting poster. He has different views to many but it's a forum for debate. Ban the idiot who talks of himself in the third person or obvious wum,s like kongolo. It’s not about, whether someone has controversial views that some may disagree with, though is it? Surly it’s about complying with the rules One of the rules is STRAIGHT RED CARD OFFENCES: - Any post or image that can be construed as hate of FAITH - RACE or SEXUAL PERSUASION. The only logical reason Oti and others have not fallen foul of this in the past, is clearly that that admins refuse to apply it, so maybe it’s time to drop it? |
|
|
|
Post by mayorofcov (BFHB) Honours on Dec 4, 2018 20:36:56 GMT 1
Oti Oti show us your arse
Oti show us your arse
UTT
|
|
|
|
Post by terriertim on Dec 4, 2018 22:49:20 GMT 1
Stand up if you love (Scr)Otium
repeat till this diabolical ban is lifted !
|
|
|
|
Post by leedsroadrob on Dec 5, 2018 0:01:27 GMT 1
Yeah, real pity this. Having blocked him a year or so ago I'm really missing missing his posts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 0:08:11 GMT 1
Yeah, real pity this. Having blocked him a year or so ago I'm really missing missing his posts. But you felt the need to post a comment on a thread with otium in the title. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 8:30:37 GMT 1
Yeah, real pity this. Having blocked him a year or so ago I'm really missing missing his posts. i find it pitiful that a presumably human, adult male has to block a members posts on a forum because he finds them so distasteful and against his personal opinion. Its a two way street. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 8:32:10 GMT 1
Can any admins confirm what posts otium made which resulted in the reports and this ban. Not too much to ask is it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 10:14:59 GMT 1
If comments made in jest are been acted upon now does that mean joes 'white white white is right' remark in the almondbury thread should result in punishment
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 12:07:41 GMT 1
So admins are now just going to ignore basic and relevant questions?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 16:25:24 GMT 1
You better answer my questions before a black wolf swallows my brain, fucking silicon sealent fucks, copper edging, bay window twats, answer me, answer me answer me before i lose my shit
|
|
|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Dec 5, 2018 18:18:22 GMT 1
For the avoidance of doubt, the punishment for breach of rules is as follows: "DATM DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES: We operate a YELLOW and RED CARD disciplinary system - posters who are in contravention of the rules for a minor offence will receive a YELLOW CARD (a warning level of 33%). TWO YELLOW CARD offences (a MINOR RED CARD offence and a warning level of 66%) will result in a ban of one week. A further TWO YELLOW CARDS (a second MINOR RED CARD OFFENCE) will result in a one month ban. Finally, TWO more YELLOW CARDS (a third MINOR RED CARD) on top of this (6 in total) will result in a lifetime ban. If you commit a MAJOR offence, you will receive a straight RED card - resulting in a ban of ONE CALENDAR MONTH. Any infringement following a MAJOR RED CARD will result in a lifetime ban." Otium had recently been banned for 1 week following two yellow card offences. The "Action Log" shows that we have taken some sort of action on around 25 occasions since June 2018 (around 1 per week). This ranges from deleting posts to permanent bans, but most are either yellow cards or deleting accounts of people who have already been banned and have tried to make duplicate accounts. For context, this week, we have had 16 posts reported to us. The reason why so little action is taken, is because we appreciate that there are some topics stir emotions, that it is an emotional sport, and that things need to be taken in context and in the spirit that they are intended. We also give significant leeway on the OT board, where the topics can be even more emotive and contentious, and where people enter knowing that fact. Taking things in context goes both ways. Of the 6 Otium posts reported, we collectively decided that, taken in context, 2 were a breach of the rules and 4 were not. That means that Otium should get at least 2 yellow cards. The discussion was whether one or both of those posts should result in red or yellow cards, but having regard to the fact that Otium had already been banned for a week (and so the result of either would be a month ban) it was a bit of a moot point. As for the rules, whenever something like this happens there is a brief hubbub where a minority (not realising they are a minority) pick up arms and demand that the rules be changed or a ban overturned. A poll is often then started which (subject to a few suggestions for minor changes, such as implementing an "Action Log") overwhelmingly decides that the rules should not be changed and the ban not overturned. In any event, Otium's attempt to rapidly distance himself from his comments, then to make a martyrdom post in an attempt to deflect attention onto the issue of "free speech", shows clearly (to me anyway) that he knew he had overstepped the mark. We didn't prompt him, and hadn't told him that he had been reported, or that we were discussing taking action. He knew he had gone too far. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of speech. When you join a foonly 3 out rum, you agree to abide by the forum rules. A breach of those rules has consequences. We have been accused of being fascists, doling out unequal treatment to people. If we didn't apply the rules to posters, however popular they are, then we would be treating them unequally. The vast majority of people are able to use this forum, and engage in heated discussions, without falling foul of the rules. Just because you are a self-proclaimed intellectual, and you attempt to couch what you say in terms akin to "I'm only giving my theory", doesn't mean that what you say isn't subject to the forum rules. In any event, for every person we have saying that we are too harsh on people, we have at least as many, often more, saying that we are too lenient. The fact that we get both sides suggests (in my view) that we are just about finding the balance. Interesting that only 3 out 5 admins agreed with the course of action. Maybe you should say which admins voted for the ban and which are a bit more tolerant of peoples views. |
|
