[Firewire]

Originally Posted by Smithy

Why?

Because it'll stop me getting infracted!

[Smithy]

Originally Posted by Firewire

Because it'll stop me getting infracted!

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Firewire

I think removing the reporting posts feature would help a lot

I know you were joking and I know people think I'm being flippant when I suggest this but these days I'm really not

Just...get rid of it? How about we all just learn to handle ourselves like adults rather than running off to the mods like kids to a teacher? I would much prefer - and think it's a lot healthier - for members to be able to address things and people they disagree with and say what they REALLY think if it gets heated rather than trying to reign it in, which just fosters ill feeling. Let's hash it out. This is the internet, text on a screen, does it really matter if someone is offended? Just give as good as you get.

The way I see it is, so long as threads don't go off-topic too much (which can make the forum messy), so long as people's personal information isn't being used against them, and so long as people aren't making any libellous comments that could get admin into legal trouble, then what other rules do we need?

'It cheapens/spoils the forum' is often used as justification for a lot of rules. Well, let me put it this way...there's a lot of spammy, repetitive, inane or just plain baiting threads that are posted here on a daily basis, and it's those that actually cheapen/spoil the forum and that need dealing with IMO. I'd much rather see two people going at it in a thread over racism than yet another three pager about someone's favourite changing or what Jeremy Corbyn put in the bin last night.

[James]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I know you were joking and I know people think I'm being flippant when I suggest this but these days I'm really not

Just...get rid of it? How about we all just learn to handle ourselves like adults rather than running off to the mods like kids to a teacher? I would much prefer - and think it's a lot healthier - for members to be able to address things and people they disagree with and say what they REALLY think if it gets heated rather than trying to reign it in, which just fosters ill feeling. Let's hash it out. This is the internet, text on a screen, does it really matter if someone is offended? Just give as good as you get.

The way I see it is, so long as threads don't go off-topic too much (which can make the forum messy), so long as people's personal information isn't being used against them, and so long as people aren't making any libellous comments that could get admin into legal trouble, then what other rules do we need?

'It cheapens/spoils the forum' is often used as justification for a lot of rules. Well, let me put it this way...there's a lot of spammy, repetitive, inane or just plain baiting threads that are posted here on a daily basis, and it's those that actually cheapen/spoil the forum and that need dealing with IMO. I'd much rather see two people going at it in a thread over racism than yet another three pager about someone's favourite changing or what Jeremy Corbyn put in the bin last night.

Experience on the forum has shown allowing arguments to go on, or allowing insults, doesn't work. Many people generally don't want to be personally insulted for supporting a housemate or whatever, and are likely to be put off the forum if they get insulted - and that isn't in this forum's best interests. You'll get some people thinking it is alright to insult as a forum weapon, and you'll only be left with those types of members.

Allowing arguments has the effect (in practise) of excluding people from debates.

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by James

Experience on the forum has shown allowing arguments to go on, or allowing insults, doesn't work. Many people generally don't want to be personally insulted for supporting a housemate or whatever, and are likely to be put off the forum if they get insulted - and that isn't in this forum's best interests. You'll get some people thinking it is alright to insult as a forum weapon, and you'll only be left with those types of members.

Allowing arguments has the effect (in practise) of excluding people from debates.

I'm against the idea of discontinuing infractions/bans but what you're explaining I feel happens despite the warnings. Once the ban is over, or once the infraction runs out, it's back to the normal routine... We're heading for a forum with only those types of members regardless of whether or not you "allow" arguments and insults to occur.

Like somebody else has mentioned, certain members can go on insulting other members for years before they're banned indefinitely... just look at 'The Truth'.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

I'm against the idea of discontinuing infractions/bans but what you're explaining I feel happens despite the warnings. Once the ban is over, or once the infraction runs out, it's back to the normal routine... We're heading for a forum with only those types of members regardless of whether or not you "allow" arguments and insults to occur.

Like somebody else has mentioned, certain members can go on insulting other members for years before they're banned indefinitely... just look at 'The Truth'.

The Truth did not insult members?

If he did there were plenty of members with their fingers on the red triangle


his beef was women in general

[Rob!]

A bit of feedback on the reports we give wouldn't go amiss tbh. This on season especially has been horrendous for unacceptable comments and it doesn't seem to have altered at all.

[Denver]

I do think mods protect some posters.

Also they say contact if you have questions about your Infraction but they get ignored

[Vicky.]

I really don’t understand why mods/admin are so against have a rigid structure of what is classed as a rule break and what isn’t,

because it makes no sense to do it this way. Context is often important . Like, if we had it set so that everytime someone called someone else an idiot it was an infraction, fair enough. But then in the chat thread, there would be a bunch given out per day and we would still be in the wrong

There is a set system also in a way. There are set points for each thing. But its impossible to moderate a forum like this with completely set rules..I mean lets think of a random example that we could have for total consistency with no thinking of the context or anything else. Racism = instant ban. Seems fair enough. But some people would class saying the N word was racism (hopefully all would think this). Some would class saying immigration needs to be controlled as racism. So even then, someone has to use their judgement to if the comment is actually racist or not

Insults are either a warning, 1 point, 3 points, 5 points, or we can chose to ban outright depending on the severity. Would you really prefer every single post that could be perceived as an insult to have 5 points or something? I think..be careful what you wish for with that one tbh

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

vicky you’re the only mod to post in here so WHY was my pm ignored? i’m assuming ever mod sees the messages sent to the tibb staff robot?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Sullen Girl

vicky you’re the only mod to post in here so WHY was my pm ignored? i’m assuming ever mod sees the messages sent to the tibb staff robot?

No only James and Josy see those I think

[Denver]

No mod has ever answered this but why was i infracted and given a 2 day ban last year but the Infraction was revoked but not the ban?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Sullen Girl

vicky you’re the only mod to post in here so WHY was my pm ignored? i’m assuming ever mod sees the messages sent to the tibb staff robot?

No. James and Josy get tibbstaff messages. I used to also but it seems to not send them to me now. Josy has been away for a while. I think I remember James commenting on that actually in admin. But it was decided that it would stand, so I assume thats why you did not get an answer, or because James forgot after posting in the infraction thread. Can bring it up that even if the decision is not going to be reversed, and answer should still be given? Problem there is, so many people just send in totally random rants as replies to infractions, and it would be a huge pain in the arse for admin to send replies to every single moan.

Originally Posted by Adam.

No mod has ever answered this but why was i infracted and given a 2 day ban last year but the Infraction was revoked but not the ban?

That will have been a mistake. The system is weird, when we reverse the infractions I think it should automatically reverse bans as..that makes sense. But it doesn't and whoever reversed it will have just overlooked that. Did you not message again?

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

That will have been a mistake. The system is weird, when we reverse the infractions I think it should automatically reverse bans as..that makes sense. But it doesn't and whoever reversed it will have just overlooked that. Did you not message again?

I messaged the robot but was ignored

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Adam.

I messaged the robot but was ignored

Probably better off to message a mod in future

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Adam.

No mod has ever answered this but why was i infracted and given a 2 day ban last year but the Infraction was revoked but not the ban?

if you reverse an infraction it doesn't unban you automatically, that has to be done separately so whoever did it must have forgot to unban you. I can't check it right now though because I'm on my phone

[Ashley.]

I don't know, I've found it relatively easy to avoid receiving infractions. If you think there's a chance you're going to be infracted for saying something then just don't say it. That's all I can say really.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

I don't know, I've found it relatively easy to avoid receiving infractions. If you think there's a chance you're going to be infracted for saying something then just don't say it. That's all I can say really.

That's not the point though when you know what you're saying is within the rules but will be infracted. OR, more common, a different poster who said similar wouldn't have their posts removed.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

so WHY was i ignored was it bc y’all knew i was in the right and just wanted to brush the whole thing under the rug?

[Jordan.]

I haven't had an infraction since 2010 when she used to be popular

[Marsh.]

I'm sorry but a rule like "No name calling" being in place and there also being context so like Scott and Smithy calling each other slags would not warrant an infraction when they're pissing about in the chat thread. Versus someone saying it in serious debates. That's just common sense.

That's not a reason to not have any actual structure imo.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I'm sorry but a rule like "No name calling" being in place and there also being context so like Scott and Smithy calling each other slags would not warrant an infraction when they're pissing about in the chat thread. Versus someone saying it in serious debates. That's just common sense.

That's not a reason to not have any actual structure imo.

But thats already challenging the consistency you claim you want?

Basically this sounds a bit like..mod other people harshly but not me and my friends. Which is usually whats meant by these threads.

If blanket rules were made up, blanket rules apply across the board. To everyone. In every thread.

Hence needing context to matter

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

But thats already challenging the consistency you claim you want?

Basically this sounds a bit like..mod other people harshly but not me and my friends. Which is usually whats meant by these threads.

If blanket rules were made up, blanket rules apply across the board. To everyone. In every thread.

Hence needing context to matter

No it's not.

It's the difference between two people having a laugh and someone insulting another member in a serious debate.

The idea of a rule being "members must not call other members a twat" is ridiculous as there's a million contexts in which this would happen.

Friends messing about, however, doesn't fall under "don't insult other members".

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

No it's not.

It's the difference between two people having a laugh and someone insulting another member in a serious debate.

The idea of a rule being "members must not call other members a twat" is ridiculous as there's a million contexts in which this would happen.

Friends messing about, however, doesn't fall under "don't insult other members".

But we're then expected to know who is friends with who at a particular time, I've often read posts in the chat thread thinking 2 people are having a laugh and then 2 minutes later one of them is reporting the other one for insults

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

But we're then expected to know who is friends with who at a particular time, I've often read posts in the chat thread thinking 2 people are having a laugh and then 2 minutes later one of them is reporting the other one for insults

Well then they're obviously not mates.

Maybe it depends on the person but I can always tell when it crosses from banter to arguing.