Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:So warn/ban the poster and leave it at that

 

Quote:I agree.

 

Quote:and it's also a reason some posters have left the board...personal insults like that should not be allowed...attacking a post is one thing but personally attacking the poster is another...there is no reason that the poster(s) should be personally degraded or disrespected with such posts...I believe that the CoC actually mentions this but I don't know where to find it... Posts such as those, should be an automatic warning

 

Quote:I agree but it's not just in this forum...It's every topic where he replies like that...Responses that attack/disrespect a poster should be an automatic warning...But if that were the case, some of our mods would be banned for going over in the number of warnings so that won't happen

 

Quote:i agree with both points. I would characterize my post to which you both responded as a shot over the bow.

 

I will also add that calling people idiots or stupid is not actually against the Message Board Rules, as long as you make a point along with the perceived insult. If the entirety of a post is "You're an idiot!", with no supporting argument, it will get at least a soft warning. That distinction was made by the PTB a long time ago.

 

Having said that, we all have a responsibility to police ourselves. If someone does it, resist the impulse to respond in kind. When political discussion was banned previously, it was because the acrimony was so overwhelming, complaints reached the front office.

Quote:I will also add that calling people idiots or stupid is not actually against the Message Board Rules, as long as you make a point along with the perceived insult. If the entirety of a post is "You're an idiot!", with no supporting argument, it will get at least a soft warning. That distinction was made by the PTB a long time ago.

 

Having said that, we all have a responsibility to police ourselves. If someone does it, resist the impulse to respond in kind. When political discussion was banned previously, it was because the acrimony was so overwhelming, complaints reached the front office.

I can understand that. But at any point a poster is personally attacked, a warning should be given...Attack the message, attack the post, but not the poster...It is what it is, I guess...I do recall reading the ToS or CoC (whatever it's called) a long time ago and there was something said about posting respectfully or something along that lines...I can't seem to find the ToS or CoC or I would reread what it says before I started trying to quote it....

Quote:I can understand that. But at any point a poster is personally attacked, a warning should be given...Attack the message, attack the post, but not the poster...It is what it is, I guess...I do recall reading the ToS or CoC (whatever it's called) a long time ago and there was something said about posting respectfully or something along that lines...I can't seem to find the ToS or CoC or I would reread what it says before I started trying to quote it....

 

The rules are posted in the Jaguars.com forum.

Quote:The rules are posted in the Jaguars.com forum.

Specifically: "Attacking the opinion is allowed. Attacking the poster is not." In other words, no "Ad Hominem" attacks will be tolerated. Although, I've had plenty of people attack me on posts before and have even been called a "Moron" by one poster, and nothing happened to them as far as I know.

 

 

Is the rule against Ad Hominem attacks more symbolic than anything?

Quote:The rules are posted in the Jaguars.com forum.

"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy
, or otherwise violative of any law."  http://jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/top...ard-rules/

 

I would think the highlighted section would cover such posts as we are referencing, which should lead to a warning... I suppose that would lead to having to define each and every term though

Quote:Specifically: "Attacking the opinion is allowed. Attacking the poster is not." In other words, no "Ad Hominem" attacks will be tolerated. Although, I've had plenty of people attack me on posts before and have even been called a "Moron" by one poster, and nothing happened to them as far as I know.

 

 

Is the rule against Ad Hominem attacks more symbolic than anything?

They can't enforce that because several of the long time mods couldn't adhear to the policy and would be banned....

Quote:They can't enforce that because several of the long time mods couldn't adhear to the policy and would be banned....

FBT in particular. No offense to FBT, but some of his responses to other users on the board are borderline insulting.

Quote:FBT in particular. No offense to FBT, but some of his responses to other users on the board are borderline insulting.

Pirkster is another although he seems to have calmed down a little, it still seems that he looks for the most ignorant, insulting way to reply to anyone that doesn't agree with him. Both are knowledgable and actually research things before they start talking about them, but the tone inwhich they reply is just intentionally as rude, condescending, and degrading as possible

I don't know if I can respond in a way either of you will accept, as it will obviously appear that I'm just backing up the other mods, but I don't think what you are talking about violates the rule you cited. For that matter, neither did Oklahomie's post. Speaking for myself, I don't warn for any "personal attacks" unless there is a threat of violence, or mindless name calling with no other substance in a particular post.

 

A board like this requires a certain thickness of skin, or at least an ability to let certain things roll off one's back.

The terrorists are definitely enemy soldiers. Just because they don't have internationally recognized borders consisting of embassies, capital cities, et. al. they are enemies, they are combatants. We live in a different age when enemy soldiers are not invading our beaches or burning down our cities, they are still waging war against us.

 

Regards....................the Chiefjag

Quote:I don't know if I can respond in a way either of you will accept, as it will obviously appear that I'm just backing up the other mods, but I don't think what you are talking about violates the rule you cited. For that matter, neither did Oklahomie's post. Speaking for myself, I don't warn for any "personal attacks" unless there is a threat of violence, or mindless name calling with no other substance in a particular post.

 

A board like this requires a certain thickness of skin, or at least an ability to let certain things roll off one's back.

Thats true however, " You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening
, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law." http://jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/top...ard-rules/

 

The highlighted portion would indicate that the post was abusive, defamatory, hateful, and possibly even harrassing...I understand that thick skin is required, but I also know that the rules say the above mentioned terms are prohibited, yet these things run rampant on this board...Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to start a crusade here, I'm simply stating that the rules are in place to maintain a certain amount of order and respect among posters, yet this portion of the rules is disregarded...

 

I'll be the last one on planet earth that gets offended by anonymous message board posters, but I also believe that the rules cover the topic pretty clearly, and yet the rules are not enforced...

 

I do understand your point, and I really have no problem with what you are telling me, I'm simply saying the rules are in place that will stop/slow down the practice of intentionally disrespecting posters, but no one bothers to enforce these rules...Why might that be?  Might it because no one has bothered to sit down and define what each term actually means? Or is there no common ground between mods as to what would actually constitute the terms mentioned? Or is it lack of interest in enforcing that part of the rules? The following two definitions would indicate the post we are using for reference is in violation of the rules by using at least two of the terms mentioned which are prohibited. I'm not advocating for removal of that post, I'm just citing it as a perfect example where the rules say that type of content is prohibited yet it will not be enforced just like the other hundreds of posts that are already on the board(s) and the hundreds more that are yet to come...

 
 
a·bu·sive
<span>əˈbyo͞osiv,əˈbyo͞oziv/</span>
<i>adjective</i>
adjective: <b>abusive</b>
1.

extremely offensive and insulting.

 

<div>de·fam·a·to·ry
<span>dəˈfaməˌtôrē/</span>
<i>adjective</i>
adjective: <b>defamatory</b>
(of remarks, writing, etc.) damaging the good reputation of someone

 

 

hate·ful
<span>ˈhātfəl/</span>
<i>adjective</i>
adjective: <b>hateful</b>

<div>arousing, deserving of, or filled with hatred.
"hateful letters of abuse that had come unsigned"
</div>
informal
very unpleasant</div>

Quote:The terrorists are definitely enemy soldiers. Just because they don't have internationally recognized borders consisting of embassies, capital cities, et. al. they are enemies, they are combatants. We live in a different age when enemy soldiers are not invading our beaches or burning down our cities, they are still waging war against us.

 

Regards....................the Chiefjag

Exactly right Chief! The days of war as WWll (and others) have seen are over...These terrorists want to take over the entire world and rule with Islamic law...

Quote: 

Thats true however, " You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening
, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law." http://jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/top...ard-rules/

 

The highlighted portion would indicate that the post was abusive, defamatory, hateful, and possibly even harrassing...I understand that thick skin is required, but I also know that the rules say the above mentioned terms are prohibited, yet these things run rampant on this board...Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to start a crusade here, I'm simply stating that the rules are in place to maintain a certain amount of order and respect among posters, yet this portion of the rules is disregarded...

 

I'll be the last one on planet earth that gets offended by anonymous message board posters, but I also believe that the rules cover the topic pretty clearly, and yet the rules are not enforced...

 

I do understand your point, and I really have no problem with what you are telling me, I'm simply saying the rules are in place that will stop/slow down the practice of intentionally disrespecting posters, but no one bothers to enforce these rules...Why might that be?  Might it because no one has bothered to sit down and define what each term actually means? Or is there no common ground between mods as to what would actually constitute the terms mentioned? Or is it lack of interest in enforcing that part of the rules? The following two definitions would indicate the post we are using for reference is in violation of the rules by using at least two of the terms mentioned which are prohibited. I'm not advocating for removal of that post, I'm just citing it as a perfect example where the rules say that type of content is prohibited yet it will not be enforced just like the other hundreds of posts that are already on the board(s) and the hundreds more that are yet to come...

<div> 
 
a·bu·sive
<span>əˈbyo͞osiv,əˈbyo͞oziv/</span>
<i>adjective</i>
adjective: <b>abusive</b>
1.

extremely offensive and insulting.

 

<div>de·fam·a·to·ry
<span>dəˈfaməˌtôrē/</span>
<i>adjective</i>
adjective: <b>defamatory</b>
(of remarks, writing, etc.) damaging the good reputation of someone

 

 

hate·ful
<span>ˈhātfəl/</span>
<i>adjective</i>
adjective: <b>hateful</b>

<div>arousing, deserving of, or filled with hatred.
"hateful letters of abuse that had come unsigned"
</div>
informal
very unpleasant</div>
 

</div>

 

I understand your point. The problem comes when determining boundaries.

 

I hope you'll accept my sincerity when I say I don't think calling someone stupid is anything more than rude and insulting, not abusive, defamatory or even hateful.

Quote:I understand your point. The problem comes when determining boundaries.

 

I hope you'll accept my sincerity when I say I don't think calling someone stupid is anything more than rude and insulting
, not abusive, defamatory or even hateful.

the definition of abusive is "offensive and insulting" so they are the same thing(not to mention disrespectful)...Calling someone stupid isn't a major deal until it becomes standard in a person's post(s)...along with other aspects of disrespect as well...Anyway, we are way off topic here and it's not a major thing anyway...I just wondered why that part of the rules are not enforced...You feel abusive is not anything more than what you stated, although one of the terms you stated is the definition of abusive...Anyway, I can see your point, and I can understand and respect your point, and now we can get back on topic! :thumbsup: 

 
a·bu·sive
<span>əˈbyo͞osiv,əˈbyo͞oziv/</span>
<i>adjective</i>
adjective: <b>abusive</b>
1.

extremely offensive and insulting.

Quote:Pirkster is another although he seems to have calmed down a little, it still seems that he looks for the most ignorant, insulting way to reply to anyone that doesn't agree with him. Both are knowledgable and actually research things before they start talking about them, but the tone inwhich they reply is just intentionally as rude, condescending, and degrading as possible

I know it's not appropriate to talk about other members in public but I absolutely wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I don't understand why they treat others the way they do. Especially when they're communicating with other anonymous members on an online message board. 21st century society is crazy man.

Stupid is as stupid does. Forrest Gump was a smart man.


I get more aggravated when someone doesn't get my POV moreso than if/when they call me names. It hasn't happened since I've been back, but back in the day.... like others have said, it got so bad they shut down ANY political discussion and were close to shutting down the board due to some folks being so hateful.


I had thinner skin back then and I'm a sensitive natured person so what people said personally really hurt. I've never understood why people have to be so negative and hateful and disparaging to those who have a different POV.

Quote:I know it's not appropriate to talk about other members in public but I absolutely wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I don't understand why they treat others the way they do. Especially when they're communicating with other anonymous members on an online message board. 21st century society is crazy man.

I agree 100%. I had to think hard before posting a name because it's not nice to talk about others, especially when they haven't been active in the same discussion...I have often wondered why they feel the need to post as they do...I would suspect they don't talk to people in real life that way, and I won't speculate as to why they post that way either...That would open up another can of worms...

Quote:Stupid is as stupid does. Forrest Gump was a smart man.


I get more aggravated when someone doesn't get my POV moreso than if/when they call me names. It hasn't happened since I've been back, but back in the day.... like others have said, it got so bad they shut down ANY political discussion and were close to shutting down the board due to some folks being so hateful.


I had thinner skin back then and I'm a sensitive natured person so what people said personally really hurt. I've never understood why people have to be so negative and hateful and disparaging to those who have a different POV.

Yeah sometimes people just don't "get it" which is annoying too...I don't get offended by what people post even when it's nasty, I just wonder why it's allowed on this board...I post on various other types of message boards such as stock market and investment type boards, and even some other sports related boards, and not one of them allow posters to be called names, or disrespected in any form...

 

Here is a c/p from the mod handbook (from another site) as to what is and isn't allowed...(Not the full document)

 

Personal Attack

This is when someone attacks one or more members personally rather than the content of that Member's message.  The post does not have to be addressed to the "target" of the attack to be considered a Personal Attack. If it attacks a messenger rather than the message, it qualifies for deletion and it is expected that Moderators will remove it. (Example) "You're stupid! The CEO would never do that!" "Only an idiot would think that way"

 

If the post is about other Users then it should be removed.

Quote:I agree 100%. I had to think hard before posting a name because it's not nice to talk about others, especially when they haven't been active in the same discussion...I have often wondered why they feel the need to post as they do...I would suspect they don't talk to people in real life that way, and I won't speculate as to why they post that way either...That would open up another can of worms...

Yeah sometimes people just don't "get it" which is annoying too...I don't get offended by what people post even when it's nasty, I just wonder why it's allowed on this board...I post on various other types of message boards such as stock market and investment type boards, and even some other sports related boards, and not one of them allow posters to be called names, or disrespected in any form...

 

Here is a c/p from the mod handbook (from another site) as to what is and isn't allowed...(Not the full document)

 

Personal Attack

This is when someone attacks one or more members personally rather than the content of that Member's message.  The post does not have to be addressed to the "target" of the attack to be considered a Personal Attack. If it attacks a messenger rather than the message, it qualifies for deletion and it is expected that Moderators will remove it. (Example) "You're stupid! The CEO would never do that!" "Only an idiot would think that way"

 

If the post is about other Users then it should be removed.

Heh, I just visited one of those stockmarket/investment forums, and some of the posters on there seem to be more knowledgeable about the Economy/Stock-Market than most Politicians. 

Quote:Heh, I just visited one of those stockmarket/investment forums, and some of the posters on there seem to be more knowledgeable about the Economy/Stock-Market than most Politicians. 

Some of those forums are inhabited by paid bashers and paid pumpers...They get paid to trash talk some stocks to try and make people sell so the price goes down and some are paid to pump it up in order to make people think the price is going to explode...Penny stocks are the worst ones for that kind of stuff...The minipulation of penny stocks is outrageous...Pennies are very loosley regulated by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority but ultimate authority resides with the SEC...Peniies are called OTC (over the counter ) stocks because they are barley looked over so there are more scams than real companies. They are all real companies, but most put out fake news and astronomical revenue projections... They are quite alluring because for a very small investment, you can get millions of shares...Some pennies trade at a fraction of a penny...Like .003 cents per share and some drop even lower and then the company pays a promotion group to send out emails and stock anylsis saying the price per share is going to explode because news is coming out that will blow your minds and people flock to the company to buy shares...

Quote: 

the definition of abusive is "offensive and insulting" so they are the same thing(not to mention disrespectful)...Calling someone stupid isn't a major deal until it becomes standard in a person's post(s)...along with other aspects of disrespect as well...Anyway, we are way off topic here and it's not a major thing anyway...I just wondered why that part of the rules are not enforced...You feel abusive is not anything more than what you stated, although one of the terms you stated is the definition of abusive...Anyway, I can see your point, and I can understand and respect your point, and now we can get back on topic! :thumbsup:

<div> 
a·bu·sive
<span>əˈbyo͞osiv,əˈbyo͞oziv/</span>
<i>adjective</i>
adjective: <b>abusive</b>
1.

extremely offensive and insulting.

 

</div>

 

At the risk of appearing eager to get in the last word, the keyword there is "extremely".