Uh Oh! We're In Trouble

[ans]

Let's not get into a legal discussion. We're more than aware of our own legal obligations thanks to the advice we have received over the years.

 

Legal issues are always avoided if people take more care in what they choose to post, that's the important message.

[Declan]

I'm not entirely sure that this is an issue for the mods - it's not about legality, or the continuance of the forum or even the smooth running of the forum. Once we start getting into subjective areas like has some stepped over the line we are investing too much responsibility in the mods. I feel that the reaction of the forum to Jahova's comments should have prompted him to release he'd gone too far and edit his posts. We shouldn't need to run to nanny everytime something crops up we should be able to convince errant posters of the error of their ways.

 

On the issue of sensitivity where someone has recently died, I feel that we need to clarify what position is. I suggest that rather than top down from Uni (it's not his style anyway) or the mods who are just ordinary users with housekeeping duties, it should be drawn up by discussion on her amongst the members. If we can come up with a policy that 75% or 80% of the forum concur it'll probably reduce these debatable incidents, make the mods role easier and less controversial.

[Stavros]

I've often thought that if people were only allowed to post under their real name they'd soon self-censor what they would post. But it might make the forums a little too staid.

Do you mean like Pat Ayres did when he changed from Skrappy so that everyone knew who he was and that he'd take responsibility for what he said. Isn't it a shame that Jehovah didn't think about doing that too.

[ans]

I've often thought that if people were only allowed to post under their real name they'd soon self-censor what they would post. But it might make the forums a little too staid.

Do you mean like Pat Ayres did when he changed from Skrappy so that everyone knew who he was and that he'd take responsibility for what he said. Isn't it a shame that Jehovah didn't think about doing that too.

 

I'm not sure that's the best example to use when Pat registered a new account mere hours later so he could continue to post things he wouldn't want associated with his real name.

[Stavros]

No, really? ( shock, horror)

[bluemonday]

On the issue of sensitivity where someone has recently died, I feel that we need to clarify what position is. I suggest that rather than top down from Uni (it's not his style anyway) or the mods who are just ordinary users with housekeeping duties, it should be drawn up by discussion on her amongst the members. If we can come up with a policy that 75% or 80% of the forum concur it'll probably reduce these debatable incidents, make the mods role easier and less controversial.

 

Won't work.

 

Someone kills themselves drink driving and everyones supposed to join the nationwide outpouring of grief.

Any who dares to point out that someone who drink drives brings it on themselves gets crucified.

For telling the truth.

 

Must beat our breast for Racing deaths and woe betide anyone who dares point out the risks and the horrifying consequences.

 

It is however ok to make kebab jokes about someone innocent of anything dying in a fire.

[Addie]

I'm not entirely sure that this is an issue for the mods - it's not about legality, or the continuance of the forum or even the smooth running of the forum. Once we start getting into subjective areas like has some stepped over the line we are investing too much responsibility in the mods. I feel that the reaction of the forum to Jahova's comments should have prompted him to release he'd gone too far and edit his posts. We shouldn't need to run to nanny everytime something crops up we should be able to convince errant posters of the error of their ways.

 

On the issue of sensitivity where someone has recently died, I feel that we need to clarify what position is. I suggest that rather than top down from Uni (it's not his style anyway) or the mods who are just ordinary users with housekeeping duties, it should be drawn up by discussion on her amongst the members. If we can come up with a policy that 75% or 80% of the forum concur it'll probably reduce these debatable incidents, make the mods role easier and less controversial.

I agree with what you say. But sometimes if someone mentions that a post is in very bad taste, it quite often descends into a slanging match.

 

I've never knowingly had an issue with the Mods, they do a really good job I reckon - and they're kinder than I would be. But they can't be everywhere all of the time.

 

Are there only 8 of them?

 

It's a busy board so it could perhaps be useful to assist the mods by giving a heads up on iffy posts/threads?

 

The legal side does seem well catered for. I don't think that's the problem here.

[Sebrof]

I've often thought that if people were only allowed to post under their real name they'd soon self-censor what they would post. But it might make the forums a little too staid.

Do you mean like Pat Ayres did when he changed from Skrappy so that everyone knew who he was and that he'd take responsibility for what he said. Isn't it a shame that Jehovah didn't think about doing that too.

 

I'm not sure that's the best example to use when Pat registered a new account mere hours later so he could continue to post things he wouldn't want associated with his real name.

 

Well, he is a wannabe politician. We should expect no less.

 

S

[Declan]

Won't work.

 

Someone kills themselves drink driving and everyones supposed to join the nationwide outpouring of grief.

Any who dares to point out that someone who drink drives brings it on themselves gets crucified.

For telling the truth.

 

Must beat our breast for Racing deaths and woe betide anyone who dares point out the risks and the horrifying consequences.

 

It is however ok to make kebab jokes about someone innocent of anything dying in a fire.

 

That illustrates why I think we need to reach a concensus on this. Rather than ad hoc approach we get at the moment.

[Declan]

Oh isn't Pat's other account Jehovah?

[Stavros]

Really?

 

Why would he go through the process of changing one account name to his real name and then setting up a new account to post things he doesn't want associated with his own name. Wouldn't it have been better just to continue posting as the previous name and not bother changing it or am I somehow missing the point?

[ans]

Oh isn't Pat's other account Jehovah?

 

Aren't you usually one of the first to complain at people's sock puppets being outed?

[Topaz]

" Really?

 

Why would he go through the process of changing one account name to his real name and then setting up a new account to post things he doesn't want associated with his own name. Wouldn't it have been better just to continue posting as the previous name and not bother changing it or am I somehow missing the point?"

 

 

Well, I think it's all to do with the Jehovah name and a possible connection to Jehovahs Witness's. It's not that the manx have got anything against Jehovahs Witness's per se. Just that us Manx would usualy rather not have any witness's.

[Addie]

" Really?

 

Why would he go through the process of changing one account name to his real name and then setting up a new account to post things he doesn't want associated with his own name. Wouldn't it have been better just to continue posting as the previous name and not bother changing it or am I somehow missing the point?"

 

 

Well, I think it's all to do with the Jehovah name and a possible connection to Jehovahs Witness's. It's not that the manx have got anything against Jehovahs Witness's per se. Just that us Manx would usualy rather not have any witness's.

We Manx? Please don't speak on my behalf.

 

I'm Manx and I don't feel that way. I couldn't care less one way or the other if Jehovas Witnesses are on the island or not.

[Stavros]

It's not that the manx have got anything against Jehovahs Witness's per se. Just that us Manx would usualy rather not have any witness's.

I don't think it's a dig at Jehovah's Witnesses, I might be wrong but the way I read it was 'rather not have any witnesses' and not 'rather not have any Jehovah's Witnesses.'

 

I think that's what they meant anyway as this is to do with changing user names.