I feel compelled to open this thread following cat's thoughtful comments over the collective ribbing of mdta over his weight.
TVF and the Lounge/MP247 achieve heights of bitchiness and cat-calling I have never seen on any other internet meeting place. And I visit a few on many different subjects.
I have had the piss taken out of me on this forum for years now on various different subjects, from the way I look to the way I speak to my slightly pretentious airs from time to time.
Equally, there are plenty of people, I think, that appreciate me and my contributions to this place. I think of a lot of you as my online friends - not my real friends of course, but I have a connection to you lot unlike any other place I visit.
Some like me, some don't. Some speak of me in nice terms, others not.
In my opinion, that's just life. It's part of the banter of this place, and I'm thick-skinned enough to absorb it.
Regarding the pisstake of mdta, Katherine and Simon Luxton et al, I would personally never censor that, in the way I would never censor bitchiness about me. I think Gav and Martin are probably the same.
On the subject of personal abusiveness and pisstaking, where would you draw the line for moderation?
PS. The word 'Luxton' has been temporarily removed from the swear filter.
Bullying, banter and the forum
It's difficult to put in precise terms, and in most cases is purely a case of personal judgement. Obvsiously, the difficulty comes because this personal judgement is subjective and individual.
People need to know when to stop, and I would agree with cat in that the jokes directed at Martin have stepped over an invisible line. Some of the things being directed at him are far *too* personal and are, essentially, abusive. If I were in Martin's position, I would be extremely offended by some of the stuff that's been said. However, I am not Martin, and it is of course up to him to take the matter further if he wishes to do so.
All I would personally say is there is a boundary that some people are overstepping by quite a distance, and it is up to those people to be careful. In a few instances, I've seen what has been perceived by the writers and others as wit, good humour or harmless ribbing turn into pure abuse.
I do tend to raise my eyebrows and move away when I see that, so I just think people should be wary of what they are writing and how it may be construed by the recipients.
People need to know when to stop, and I would agree with cat in that the jokes directed at Martin have stepped over an invisible line. Some of the things being directed at him are far *too* personal and are, essentially, abusive. If I were in Martin's position, I would be extremely offended by some of the stuff that's been said. However, I am not Martin, and it is of course up to him to take the matter further if he wishes to do so.
All I would personally say is there is a boundary that some people are overstepping by quite a distance, and it is up to those people to be careful. In a few instances, I've seen what has been perceived by the writers and others as wit, good humour or harmless ribbing turn into pure abuse.
I do tend to raise my eyebrows and move away when I see that, so I just think people should be wary of what they are writing and how it may be construed by the recipients.
Not from me. My comments were directed at comments such as
That, to me, is inexcusable abuse from someone who appears not to know what they're saying.
...in, of all the possible threads it could have been in, "Election 2005".that growth on the first of your chins does not in any way make you look less of a fat bastard
That, to me, is inexcusable abuse from someone who appears not to know what they're saying.
I agree, and thus my comment which I've posted into the Election thread.DAS wrote:Not from me. My comments were directed at comments such as
...in, of all the possible threads it could have been in, "Election 2005".that growth on the first of your chins does not in any way make you look less of a fat bastard
That, to me, is inexcusable abuse from someone who appears not to know what they're saying.
I will reply to Gavin's reply in the election thread in here. (Does that make sense?)
I don't think we should start tip-toeing around; the banter on here and poking fun at people is generally what contributes to the atmosphere.
But there is, as people have said, a line that can be crossed. And I think that's recognisable when just about every response to a post that is made by a person comes in the form of an insult about their personal appearance, rather than the comments they are making.
I certainly don't want people editing out insults, I just think it's about time that it stopped, as Martin pointed out that he was offended by the comments.
I don't think we should start tip-toeing around; the banter on here and poking fun at people is generally what contributes to the atmosphere.
But there is, as people have said, a line that can be crossed. And I think that's recognisable when just about every response to a post that is made by a person comes in the form of an insult about their personal appearance, rather than the comments they are making.
I certainly don't want people editing out insults, I just think it's about time that it stopped, as Martin pointed out that he was offended by the comments.
That's a long arm thereJamez wrote:
Johnny
Harry Hill : "What is it about people that repair shoes that makes them so good at cutting keys? Try going in there with a shoe shaped like a key and see how confused they get."
Harry Hill : "What is it about people that repair shoes that makes them so good at cutting keys? Try going in there with a shoe shaped like a key and see how confused they get."
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
I appreciate the clarification. On reading the Election thread back in the cold light of day I would agree that On-the-mark's comments were unncessary and unprovoked. I'm afraid I don't know if Martin and O-t-m have a past history (it certainly reads as though they do), but an IP trace sheds no light on pervious user names.cat wrote:I will reply to Gavin's reply in the election thread in here. (Does that make sense?)
I don't think we should start tip-toeing around; the banter on here and poking fun at people is generally what contributes to the atmosphere.
But there is, as people have said, a line that can be crossed. And I think that's recognisable when just about every response to a post that is made by a person comes in the form of an insult about their personal appearance, rather than the comments they are making.
I certainly don't want people editing out insults, I just think it's about time that it stopped, as Martin pointed out that he was offended by the comments.
On a point of moderation then: rude and insulting comments should only be based on what is *said*, rather than the appearance of forum members.
Except Katherine, as she has three boobies.
I kid, I kid....
-
James Martin
- Posts: 1011
- Joined: Sun 15 Feb, 2004 19.26
I'm convinced I missed something when it happened orignially, but why is "Luxton" even IN the swear-filter? Is it so it doesn't come up in Google or something?
The pisstake of Luxton I feel is accepted because he is, to be fair, asking for it with this backward attitudes to things and the way he goes off on one when anyone tries to talk sense into him.
The fact that he is geuninely is like he is is quite frankly bizarre.
The pisstake of Luxton I feel is accepted because he is, to be fair, asking for it with this backward attitudes to things and the way he goes off on one when anyone tries to talk sense into him.
The fact that he is geuninely is like he is is quite frankly bizarre.