Questions for Mandy

Holy Crap!
Post Reply
User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74163
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Questions to Muslim Mandelson

Post by JimC » Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:00 am

Pappa wrote:Why the fuck are any of you making such a fuss about being called "mate" even if it's being used intentionally to bug you (or not)? Get a grip for fucks sake.

If Mandy is (as many people keep saying) a troll, then just stop feeding the troll.
Because it pisses people off, and they have every right to say so...

And if it is done intentionally, someone is trolling, which should not occur here...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Thinking Aloud
Page Bottomer
Posts: 20111
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:56 am
Contact:

Re: Questions to Muslim Mandelson

Post by Thinking Aloud » Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:05 am

Edit.

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: Questions to Muslim Mandelson

Post by Pappa » Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:19 am

JimC wrote:
Pappa wrote:Why the fuck are any of you making such a fuss about being called "mate" even if it's being used intentionally to bug you (or not)? Get a grip for fucks sake.

If Mandy is (as many people keep saying) a troll, then just stop feeding the troll.
Because it pisses people off, and they have every right to say so...

And if it is done intentionally, someone is trolling, which should not occur here...
We set the bar high with regard to trolling, and for good reason. We didn't want a trolling rule to be misused against people who are a pain in the arse. Intentional name calling to piss people off isn't covered.
Intentional malicious trolling and use of offensive language, images or jokes, with the intention of harassing, intimidating, tormenting or persecuting another member, or in the knowledge that such posts are likely to cause widespread general offense, will not be tolerated.
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.


When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74163
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Questions to Muslim Mandelson

Post by JimC » Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:45 am

Well, IMO, and many others I suspect, there has been much "intentional malicious trolling" in this thread...

This, of course, is neither a personal attack on anybody (it is an opinion about the nature of somebody's actions, of course), nor a statement as a mod, simply the opinion of a member...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: Questions to Muslim Mandelson

Post by Pappa » Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:51 am

JimC wrote:Well, IMO, and many others I suspect, there has been much "intentional malicious trolling" in this thread...

This, of course, is neither a personal attack on anybody (it is an opinion about the nature of somebody's actions, of course), nor a statement as a mod, simply the opinion of a member...
Simple "Intentional malicious trolling" on it's own isn't enough though Jim, either/both of the other bits I bolded also need to apply. Part of the reason for that is the difficulty in defining "Intentional malicious trolling". The other bolded bits are the clarifications which allow us to decide if the definition applies.
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.


When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.

User avatar
Thinking Aloud
Page Bottomer
Posts: 20111
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:56 am
Contact:

Re: Questions to Muslim Mandelson

Post by Thinking Aloud » Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:56 am

Pappa wrote:
JimC wrote:Well, IMO, and many others I suspect, there has been much "intentional malicious trolling" in this thread...

This, of course, is neither a personal attack on anybody (it is an opinion about the nature of somebody's actions, of course), nor a statement as a mod, simply the opinion of a member...
Simple "Intentional malicious trolling" on it's own isn't enough though Jim, either/both of the other bits I bolded also need to apply. Part of the reason for that is the difficulty in defining "Intentional malicious trolling". The other bolded bits are the clarifications which allow us to decide if the definition applies.
"With the intention of tormenting" would seem to apply nicely. Posting in the knowledge that you're winding people up is tormenting.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74163
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Questions to Muslim Mandelson

Post by JimC » Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:05 am

Thinking Aloud wrote:
Pappa wrote:
JimC wrote:Well, IMO, and many others I suspect, there has been much "intentional malicious trolling" in this thread...

This, of course, is neither a personal attack on anybody (it is an opinion about the nature of somebody's actions, of course), nor a statement as a mod, simply the opinion of a member...
Simple "Intentional malicious trolling" on it's own isn't enough though Jim, either/both of the other bits I bolded also need to apply. Part of the reason for that is the difficulty in defining "Intentional malicious trolling". The other bolded bits are the clarifications which allow us to decide if the definition applies.
"With the intention of tormenting" would seem to apply nicely. Posting in the knowledge that you're winding people up is tormenting.
Exactly... :tup:

And no one minds the occasional wind-up, but this example has been consistent, long term and with clear intent to do the opposite of playng nice...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Questions to Muslim Mandelson

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:26 am

Ian wrote:Here's a question for Mandelson: Does female promiscuity cause earthquakes?
Yes, in my pants.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Questions to Muslim Mandelson

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:27 am

Pappa wrote:Why the fuck are any of you making such a fuss about being called "mate" even if it's being used intentionally to bug you (or not)? Get a grip for fucks sake.
I, for one, didn't make a fuss over it, but I did tell Mandy that I wasn't his "mate." Point of fact.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Questions to Muslim Mandelson

Post by Animavore » Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:29 am

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Ian wrote:Here's a question for Mandelson: Does female promiscuity cause earthquakes?
Yes, in my pants.
:shock: The nervousness they cause you when they're around make you flatulent?
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Questions to Muslim Mandelson

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:31 am

JimC wrote:
Pappa wrote:Why the fuck are any of you making such a fuss about being called "mate" even if it's being used intentionally to bug you (or not)? Get a grip for fucks sake.

If Mandy is (as many people keep saying) a troll, then just stop feeding the troll.
Because it pisses people off, and they have every right to say so...

And if it is done intentionally, someone is trolling, which should not occur here...
Well, I don't think the "intent" matters. That's just a way to mask an "I don't like you so you get the boot" rule.

Either the words/statements are allowed, or they're not. That should be the rule, IMHO. Otherwise, it winds up being arbitrary.

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: Questions to Muslim Mandelson

Post by Pappa » Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:34 am

Coito ergo sum wrote:Either the words/statements are allowed, or they're not. That should be the rule, IMHO. Otherwise, it winds up being arbitrary.
We had a long discussion about that before and concluded we preferred to deal with it on a case-by-case basis.
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.


When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Questions to Muslim Mandelson

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:34 am

Animavore wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Ian wrote:Here's a question for Mandelson: Does female promiscuity cause earthquakes?
Yes, in my pants.
:shock: The nervousness they cause you when they're around make you flatulent?
No, that would be a volcanic reaction. Like Iceland, my bowels emit plumes of noxious fumes under the right conditions. In the case of Iceland, it has to do with tectonic plates and magma flows. In my case, it's whether I ate black bean chili the night before. :biggrin:

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Questions to Muslim Mandelson

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:42 am

Pappa wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Either the words/statements are allowed, or they're not. That should be the rule, IMHO. Otherwise, it winds up being arbitrary.
We had a long discussion about that before and concluded we preferred to deal with it on a case-by-case basis.
Yes, and that results in some people being able to say quite a bit of trolling and baiting type verbiage, and be judged "technically within the rules" (thereby resulting in no action), and others being "warned" to "play nice" because of the "perceived intent." It winds up being arbitrary.

It's fine to be arbitrary, of course, at least in a larger sense. Whoever runs rationalia.com can moderate how they like. But, IMHO, it is better to go by what is actually said, rather than what some complaining party characterizes it as, or how a moderator thinks he perceives the intent. When a forum has a political leaning and religious/nonreligious leaning, as this one does, then people who don't fit those molds will inevitably be given less leeway than those who do adhere to the political and religious leanings. Based on what I've seen, that does happen here.

That's why Mandy is getting all this attention for using the word, "mate." It's not for any reason than people think he is a religious loon who posts ridiculous crap.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Questions to Muslim Mandelson

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:47 am

Thinking Aloud wrote:
Pappa wrote:
JimC wrote:Well, IMO, and many others I suspect, there has been much "intentional malicious trolling" in this thread...

This, of course, is neither a personal attack on anybody (it is an opinion about the nature of somebody's actions, of course), nor a statement as a mod, simply the opinion of a member...
Simple "Intentional malicious trolling" on it's own isn't enough though Jim, either/both of the other bits I bolded also need to apply. Part of the reason for that is the difficulty in defining "Intentional malicious trolling". The other bolded bits are the clarifications which allow us to decide if the definition applies.
"With the intention of tormenting" would seem to apply nicely. Posting in the knowledge that you're winding people up is tormenting.
That, in my opinion, would not apply nicely. What that does is leave the determination of what posts are acceptable to the whim of the audience. A lot of things wind people up. People get wound up by libertarian and conservative, and especially religious, opinions expressed. If someone keeps posting them and others get wound up repeatedly so that the poster is "in the knowledge that they are winding people up" are they then "tormenting?"

The moderators then would step in and make a determination, and the tendency would be to downplay the alleged transgressions of those of whom a generally favorable opinion exists, and exaggerate the transgressions of those of whom a generally negative opinion exists. That's just human nature. I'm not claiming there would be some intent to censor or anything like that - it's just human nature. People will "interpret" what Mandy says as improper much quicker than someone who holds opinions opposite of Mandy. In my opinion, of course.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests