What exactly is so hard

[Pliablemoose]

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

 

[SagaLore]

Its probably just as hard as letting the issue die.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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!!

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Its probably just as hard as letting the issue die.

It would be easier if the issue actually died.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Its probably just as hard as letting the issue die.

It would be easier if the issue actually died.

Are you implying we kill it?

Two weeks for advocating violence:shocked:😉

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Its probably just as hard as letting the issue die.

It would be easier if the issue actually died.

Are you implying we kill it?

Two weeks for advocating violence:shocked:😉

:laugh:

 

[sash1]

it wasn't a rule/bannable offense two years ago

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: sash1
it wasn't a rule/bannable offense two years ago

The mod edits on that are great. :laugh:

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: sash1
it wasn't a rule/bannable offense two years ago

dude, it wasnt bannable 9 months ago, unless i missed a mod edit somewhere.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=38&threadid=2258946

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: sash1
it wasn't a rule/bannable offense two years ago

dude, it wasnt bannable 9 months ago, unless i missed a mod edit somewhere.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=38&threadid=2258946

No but it was lame and stupid back then.

 

[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."

 

[jTanked]

Yeah, cuz sexism doesn't exist in the real world.






Oh, wait.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: jTanked
Yeah, cuz sexism doesn't exist in the real world.






Oh, wait.

wwybywb?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

What exactly is so hard?

Thats's what SHE said.

 

[EagleKeeper]

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

 

[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.

 

[Nik]

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?

 

[EagleKeeper]

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.

 

[olds]

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...

 

[EagleKeeper]

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 🙁

 

[sixone]

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?

 

[Crusty]

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

 

[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? 😉

 

[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?

 

[EagleKeeper]

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.