[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

This thread is not about me. Please stay on topic.

Agreed.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I'm not, I was just trying to explain how insulting other members(regardless of who the member is) is against the rules. And how it is a little different when it comes to housemates or people to do with the show...as obviously people will still discuss them as housemates, rather than think of them as members.

How come thought James has said the opposite

You know... you're meant to respect other forum members. It doesn't make a difference if they are related to housemates or not. I'm just saying.

Edit; I'm meaning in the sense of a family member of a housemate who is a member. (not the scenario whereby an exhm is a member and discussions are surrounding their behaviour in the house when they were in it)

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

How come thought James has said the opposite

Ugh. I have been over this already.

You respect them as a member, by not insulting them or being abusive.

But you may still discuss them as housemates in a negative sense

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Edit; I'm meaning in the sense of a family member of a housemate who is a member. (not the scenario whereby an exhm is a member and discussions are surrounding their behaviour in the house when they were in it)

The edit totally lost me :S

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Ugh. I have been over this already.

You respect them as a member, by not insulting them or being abusive.

But you may still discuss them as housemates in a negative sense

See my edit - I wasn't meaning about them as an ex- housemate. I'm talking about relatives of housemates being members. Not ex-hms - because I clearly understand the difference in discussing how they were in the house - before they became a member.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

The edit totally lost me :S

sorry!

I'm referring back to the 'Aaron's brother' scenario.

[Vicky.]

The family members have been actively involved in the show this year. So negative threads/posts are expected, same as with the housemates.

But this still doesnt excuse people insulting them as members.

[psychtracker]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

The family members have been actively involved in the show this year. So negative threads/posts are expected, same as with the housemates.

But this still doesnt excuse people insulting them as members.

So, you're allowed to start a thread eg. Aarons's brother is a douchebag for what he said on BOTS. But, not Vicky's a douchebag for what she said about Jay on this forum.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

The family members have been actively involved in the show this year. So negative threads/posts are expected, same as with the housemates.

But this still doesnt excuse people insulting them as members.

I'd say that as soon as they become a member - they should be afforded the same rights towards the rules of the forum - as you have said - no insults - as any other member. And that includes being spoken about in anything less than a respecful way.

We aren't allowed to discuss any other members on a personal level on here if it's negative- Ie: comments designed to discuss me for example, should not be regarded any differently because the member has been actively involved in the show. Sure, fine to disagree and say we think they are wrong, but not to discuss them as such. That's not acceptable for any other forum member and I'm not sure why speaking negatively about any forum member, regardless: should be acceptable.

[Ammi]

I wouldn't personally call it 'nitpicking' if members are stating it would be easier to remove all element of doubt...to say you can say this...but you can't say that....you can do it on this thread...but not that one...you can say it in this way...but you can't say it in thay way....leaves it all open for an individuals interpretation...it's nitpicking if it's not really of any consequence, but as has been pointed out..it could result in a member being banned..when in fact they misunderstood...it also gives some members lesser rights than others because of their relatives.
If there was a definitive rule, either 'fair game' or 'member rules apply' then there would be no confusion and anyone breaking that rule would know they are doing it.
It's always easier to give a 'black or white' rule..rather than leave a lot of grey areas...because people will innocently step into those grey areas..it's inevitable

[fruit_cake]

in my view the rules are pretty obvious, and the mod team do their best and normally get it right. If you don't like the rules, don't post. It's rather bad manners to go around to someone else's house and start telling them how to run it, imo

[LivT]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Admittedly I hadn't followed the whole thread if I'm honest, I was just going by what I had seen and thought that the vast majority had been polite and friendly

I understand MTVN - but please allow me to explain my reaction?

What exacerbated the confusion further was your post in reference to my own; albeit not your intention, it looked, on the surface, as though your sentiments, at worst - were in favour of the rabble rousers, and at the very least - encouraging them. We now know this was not the case, but we can only go by how people express themselves here and it was a simple matter of miss-communication

[In the Drunk Tank]

Originally Posted by Ammi

I wouldn't personally call it 'nitpicking' if members are stating it would be easier to remove all element of doubt...to say you can say this...but you can't say that....you can do it on this thread...but not that one...you can say it in this way...but you can't say it in thay way....leaves it all open for an individuals interpretation...it's nitpicking if it's not really of any consequence, but as has been pointed out..it could result in a member being banned..when in fact they misunderstood...it also gives some members lesser rights than others because of their relatives.
If there was a definitive rule, either 'fair game' or 'member rules apply' then there would be no confusion and anyone breaking that rule would know they are doing it.
It's always easier to give a 'black or white' rule..rather than leave a lot of grey areas...because people will innocently step into those grey areas..it's inevitable

But surely you can appreciate the problem this give us; if we say it's fine to insult housemates but not to insult members then what do we do when a house mate becomes a member? We can't just say no insulting housemates on the off-chance that one of them might sign up to the forum and similarly we can't just say it's fine to insult members on this basis. There can't be a black and white rule because it isn't a black or white situation, there needs to be some kind of a compromise, some kind of a middle ground.

I would hope that people could create some kind of a distinction between them as a forum member and them as a house mate; if they are being discussed in the context of the latter, and in the context of their time in the house, then it is fair to post negative, even insulting, comments because that is part and parcel of appearing on Big Brother.

[In the Drunk Tank]

Originally Posted by LivT

I understand MTVN - but please allow me to explain my reaction?

What exacerbated the confusion further was your post in reference to my own; albeit not your intention, it looked, on the surface, as though your sentiments, at worst - were in favour of the rabble rousers, and at the very least - encouraging them. We now know this was not the case, but we can only go by how people express themselves here and it was a simple matter of miss-communication

Ok that's understandable, apologies.

[LivT]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Ok that's understandable, apologies.

*smiles*

Absolutely no apology needed...but thank you for doing so. Its a very decent gesture and shows you to be the genuine person you are