• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What exactly is so hard

About admitting the mods took the "implied violence" BS too far?

I mean seriously, it's gone on long enough, it was a stupid interpretation of the rules, and someone needs to give...

Seriously, "Implied violence"? You all are breaking new ground here, that one's not even in the most uptight HR handbook yet.


Thread has run it course.

Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn
 
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Its probably just as hard as letting the issue die.

sime people want to go for the jugular no matter how rediculous it makes them look...ie...OP of this thread!!
 
Its not the "implied violence" that is getting people banned, its anything remotely sexist. If it was for violence there would be a wave of bans, since lots of people say stuff like "just kill him."
 
Originally posted by: tasmanian
Its not the "implied violence" that is getting people banned, its anything remotely sexist. If it was for violence there would be a wave of bans, since lots of people say stuff like "just kill him."

How about implied violence against women (joke or not) is what is getting people banned.
And the same will happen when condoning implied violence/abuse of a child is posted.

Most know not to but choose to push the envelope and then others complain when they are caught. Those that are caught usually are man enough to acknowledge that they stepped over the line. And then only a few repeat. But the number of wanna-bes keep us busy.

The same goes for vandalism.

A good lesson for those that keep their ears closed.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.


Senior Anandtech moderator
Common Courtesy


 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
How about implied violence against women (joke or not) is what is getting people banned.
And the same will happen when condoning implied violence/abuse of a child is posted.

No, actually, it's not. It may be happening in OT, but it certainly has been allowed in one other forum.
 
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
How about implied violence against women (joke or not) is what is getting people banned.
And the same will happen when condoning implied violence/abuse of a child is posted.

No, actually, it's not. It may be happening in OT, but it certainly has been allowed in one other forum.

Link?
 
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
How about implied violence against women (joke or not) is what is getting people banned.
And the same will happen when condoning implied violence/abuse of a child is posted.

No, actually, it's not. It may be happening in OT, but it certainly has been allowed in one other forum.

P&N; where the rules are slightly different, but there still is a line that if crosses will result in action.

 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
How about implied violence against women (joke or not) is what is getting people banned.
And the same will happen when condoning implied violence/abuse of a child is posted.

No, actually, it's not. It may be happening in OT, but it certainly has been allowed in one other forum.

P&N; where the rules are slightly different, but there still is a line that if crosses will result in action.

I have a feeling she's talking about this forum...
 
Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
How about implied violence against women (joke or not) is what is getting people banned.
And the same will happen when condoning implied violence/abuse of a child is posted.

No, actually, it's not. It may be happening in OT, but it certainly has been allowed in one other forum.

P&N; where the rules are slightly different, but there still is a line that if crosses will result in action.

I have a feeling she's talking about this forum...
The devil is in the details 🙁

 
Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
How about implied violence against women (joke or not) is what is getting people banned.
And the same will happen when condoning implied violence/abuse of a child is posted.

No, actually, it's not. It may be happening in OT, but it certainly has been allowed in one other forum.

P&N; where the rules are slightly different, but there still is a line that if crosses will result in action.

I have a feeling she's talking about this forum...

I'm talking about L&R.

How ironic is that?
 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: tasmanian
Its not the "implied violence" that is getting people banned, its anything remotely sexist. If it was for violence there would be a wave of bans, since lots of people say stuff like "just kill him."

How about implied violence against women (joke or not) is what is getting people banned.
And the same will happen when condoning implied violence/abuse of a child is posted.

Most know not to but choose to push the envelope and then others complain when they are caught. Those that are caught usually are man enough to acknowledge that they stepped over the line. And then only a few repeat. But the number of wanna-bes keep us busy.

The same goes for vandalism.

A good lesson for those that keep their ears closed.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.


Senior Anandtech moderator
Common Courtesy


I'm all for treating everyone fairly, but how is that NOT a double standard? If you're going to vacation for implied violence it shouldn't matter what or who the target is(pets, children, men, women).


edit: by 'you' i mean moderators as a whole

 
Originally posted by: Crusty
I'm all for treating everyone fairly, but how is that NOT a double standard? If you're going to vacation for implied violence it shouldn't matter what or who the target is(pets, children, men, women).

I dunno . . . maybe for the same reason we would discriminate between a post advocating sex between two adults and one advocating sex between and adult and a child.

IOW, the target can make a difference . . . or don't you do nuance? 😉

 
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Crusty
I'm all for treating everyone fairly, but how is that NOT a double standard? If you're going to vacation for implied violence it shouldn't matter what or who the target is(pets, children, men, women).

I dunno . . . maybe for the same reason we would discriminate between a post advocating sex between two adults and one advocating sex between and adult and a child.

IOW, the target can make a difference . . . or don't you do nuance? 😉

I don't see how sex between adults has anything to do with violence against men or women.

I'm saying it's not fair that people can go willy nilly threatening men with violence, but not women or children.

If there are going to be different rules for different 'targets' then leave adults out of it and only deal with implied violence against children.

If a female were to go into a thread and post a joke implying violence against another female would they be vacationed? What about if they had the same joke but was about a male instead?
 
Originally posted by: Crusty
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Crusty
I'm all for treating everyone fairly, but how is that NOT a double standard? If you're going to vacation for implied violence it shouldn't matter what or who the target is(pets, children, men, women).

I dunno . . . maybe for the same reason we would discriminate between a post advocating sex between two adults and one advocating sex between and adult and a child.

IOW, the target can make a difference . . . or don't you do nuance? 😉

I don't see how sex between adults has anything to do with violence against men or women.

I'm saying it's not fair that people can go willy nilly threatening men with violence, but not women or children.

If there are going to be different rules for different 'targets' then leave adults out of it and only deal with implied violence against children.

If a female were to go into a thread and post a joke implying violence against another female would they be vacationed? What about if they had the same joke but was about a male instead?
Everything becomes subjective.

If the rules were layed out in stone, then someone would do exactly what you are trying to do - find loopholes.

How about just using common sense and respect toward others when posting. Save on the bans, tempers flairing and will make less work for the Moderator team.

From my POV, when it is something new and in a grey area, people will get a warning. When it happens a second time, a warning may not be issued, even if it is a different person as long as I made the original warning was made public.

Long termers get less slack cut becuase they have been around enough to understand what is not acceptable.

 
Back
Top