Blasphemy

[Kaneyoufeelit]

Guess it is all in the context of how it's said. And that would be up to the person saying it I guess. I truly believe most people use the term without really referencing anything... more of a habit with cursing than anything.

Yeah context always matters. I guess I'm just saying that my default position is that people aren't speaking ill of God when they say that. For me, "Jesus Christ" is the more troublesome phrase.

Btw, what happened to your visitor page wall? I went to post on it and it's AWAL

 

[T Town Tommy]

Yeah context always matters. I guess I'm just saying that my default position is that people aren't speaking ill of God when they say that. For me, "Jesus Christ" is the more troublesome phrase.

Btw, what happened to your visitor page wall? I went to post on it and it's AWAL

I can agree with most of what has been posted about the subject. Most people probably do not use either phrase derogatory and it's more simply a habit.

My wall should be up now.

 

[BobD]

My grandmother was convinced Jesus had a middle name that started with H.

 

[BeauBenken]

That's kind of what wooly is complaining about though. One poster is pretty consistently not being able to handle that other people don't agree with his lifestyle choice. He's decided that he needs to play the morality police for the board. As a result, he's punishing any post that doesn't fall in line with what he thinks is right, regardless of the quality of the post. Idk, just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the board.

Also, I find the "who freaking cares this is just the internet" to be an unconvincing argument coming from a mod. The fact that mods even exist shows that there is some form of community, discussion, and etiquette that needs to be protected from posters that actively detract. Otherwise, don't clean up the Brent thread because "who freaking cares that it's off topic this is the internet lolz"

Grey, honestly, your counter argument just sounds like you don't get what I'm saying.

The poster being referenced isn't even openly speaking out against posters he disagrees with. You clearly think this is a bigger deal than it is calling him the "morality police" and saying that he is "punishing" posters, as if his negative reps amount to anything more than a drop in a bucket.

Now let's talk about this "spirit of the board" thing. I can assure you that the spirit of this board is not to be able to scream obscenities and post whatever the hell you want as long as you see it as "all in good fun". The two most popular sub forum descriptions would actually conflict with that:

Notre Dame Football (287 Viewing)
Onward to Victory! Notre Dame and general college football discussion. Mature, intelligent discussion invited.

Notre Dame Football Recruiting (395 Viewing)
The future faces of Irish football. Notre Dame and general college football recruiting discussion. Please post responsibly and respectfully.

I didn't say "who freaking cares this is just the internet" so do whatever the hell you please and let mayhem reign supreme (this isn't 4chan [where even there they have moderators]); I said who cares because his neg rep really doesn't impact your ability to post.

 

[pkt77242]

I've never neg repped but it is offensive to me. We're fans of a Catholic University I really think we should/ could do better.

The gentlemen's club says hi.

 

[Cackalacky]

My grandmother was convinced Jesus had a middle name that started with H.

Hamish.

 

[BeauBenken]

The gentlemen's club says hi.

I realize that this is likely in jest, but the Gentlemen's Club is a private club for a reason. It is offensive to many posters and not suitable for a public board.

 

[greyhammer90]

Grey, honestly, your counter argument just sounds like you don't get what I'm saying.

The poster being referenced isn't even openly speaking out against posters he disagrees with. You clearly think this is a bigger deal than it is calling him the "morality police" and saying that he is "punishing" posters, as if his negative reps amount to anything more than a drop in a bucket.

As I said before, I don't think that mods should do anything about this. This is something that the posters probably need to handle among themselves by giving out negs en masse to posters who like to use it as a disagree button. Because since I've been here, that's not what it's there for. (Though I would be interested to see how the mods would handle a hard-nosed atheist who neg repped any post that contained any form of religious speech whatsoever. It would likely be the same reaction from the mods, but I feel as though many posters who are saying this is no big deal would be pretty pissed.)

Now let's talk about this "spirit of the board" thing. I can assure you that the spirit of this board is not to be able to scream obscenities and post whatever the hell you want as long as you see it as "all in good fun". The two most popular sub forum descriptions would actually conflict with that:

I didn't say "who freaking cares this is just the internet" so do whatever the hell you please and let mayhem reign supreme (this isn't 4chan [where even there they have moderators]); I said who cares because his neg rep really doesn't impact your ability to post.

My point was not that we should all be allowed to "burn this f*cker to the ground." My point was that you can't be the mod of a board that has a system in place that is taken pretty seriously by the community, and when something is (potentially) abusing that system throw your hands up and say "who cares about this? It's not a big deal. It's just the internet." That's belittling to the community you've been set up to moderate. The fact that neg reps aren't annoying to you or don't actively hurt your experience here doesn't make it that way for everyone. I think mods have as much a responsibility to protect the "tone" of the board as much as deleting off-topic posts and gameday porn. (#freeOsama).

All in all, it's not a big deal. But I don't think it's worthwhile to dismiss Wooly's complaints out of hand either.

 

[NDdomer2]

Greyhammer on point like a joint

 

[Cali_domer]

The gentlemen's club says hi.

Yeah and I don't go in there and it is private I assume.

 

[Cackalacky]

Greyhammer on point like a joint

Drawin like a pencil

 

[bkess8]

Who gives a rep's ass! Don't use his name and have some respect for others! GO IRISH!

 

[BeauBenken]

As I said before, I don't think that mods should do anything about this. This is something that the posters probably need to handle among themselves by giving out negs en masse to posters who like to use it as a disagree button. Because since I've been here, that's not what it's there for. (Though I would be interested to see how the mods would handle a hard-nosed atheist who neg repped any post that contained any form of religious speech whatsoever. It would likely be the same reaction from the mods, but I feel as though many posters who are saying this is no big deal would be pretty pissed.)



My point was not that we should all be allowed to "burn this f*cker to the ground." My point was that you can't be the mod of a board that has a system in place that is taken pretty seriously by the community, and when something is (potentially) abusing that system throw your hands up and say "who cares about this? It's not a big deal. It's just the internet." That's belittling to the community you've been set up to moderate. The fact that neg reps aren't annoying to you or don't actively hurt your experience here doesn't make it that way for everyone. I think mods have as much a responsibility to protect the "tone" of the board as much as deleting off-topic posts and gameday porn. (#freeOsama).

All in all, it's not a big deal. But I don't think it's worthwhile to dismiss Wooly's complaints out of hand either.

I guess this is where we differ in viewpoints. I don't think he is abusing the system and you (potentially) do. (Although I hear the arguments on not supplying a reasoning while neg repping.)

The rep system is in place so that the posters of the site can have a say in who posts or how much weight a posts carries. So long as you are getting more positive reps than negative, you're in the clear. That's why I was saying that one poster giving you an occassional neg rep isn't a big deal -- because you are protected by the majority of posters who enjoy your posts.

Do I personally agree with all the negative reps that were handed out by the poster? No. But he isn't doing anything dastardly that the rest of you can't also do. If a poster gets out of hand can something be done? Absolutely. I just don't see this being the case as of now.

 

[BeauBenken]

I should state again to clarify...

I take someone "potentially" abusing the system seriously, but what I see here is not someone abusing the system.

 

[greyhammer90]

I guess this is where we differ in viewpoints. I don't think he is abusing the system and you (potentially) do. (Although I hear the arguments on not supplying a reasoning while neg repping.)

The rep system is in place so that the posters of the site can have a say in who posts or how much weight a posts carries. So long as you are getting more positive reps than negative, you're in the clear. That's why I was saying that one poster giving you an occassional neg rep isn't a big deal -- because you are protected by the majority of posters who enjoy your posts.

Do I personally agree with all the negative reps that were handed out by the poster? No. But he isn't doing anything dastardly that the rest of you can't also do. If a poster gets out of hand can something be done? Absolutely. I just don't see this being the case as of now.

Sounds like we are in agreement then.

 

[BeauBenken]

Sounds like we are in agreement then.

Man, I seem to always get into those arguments that always circle around only to find out we agreed all along...

 

[greyhammer90]

Man, I seem to always get into those arguments that always circle around only to find out we agreed all along...

Probably because most disagreements of this type are perspective based. I'd also say that's a good sign. It means both parties are being reasonable and concede good points from either side. By the end of it, everyone's perspective is a little different due to the input, but everyone feels like they won because the underlying ideals they had going in remained unchanged.





















Or it could be because you're a 12 year old mod idk.

 

[BeauBenken]

Probably because most disagreements of this type are perspective based. I'd also say that's a good sign. It means both parties are being reasonable and concede good points from either side. By the end of it, everyone's perspective is a little different due to the input, but everyone feels like they won because the underlying ideals they had going in remained unchanged.

Or it could be because you're a 12 year old mod idk.

Neg rep.

 

[BGIF]

As I said before, I don't think that mods should do anything about this. This is something that the posters probably need to handle among themselves by giving out negs en masse to posters who like to use it as a disagree button. Because since I've been here, that's not what it's there for. ...

Yeah, right, moderators shouldn't moderate the board. The patients should run the asylum like a bunch of vigilantes.

vig·i·lan·te
ˌvijəˈlan(t)ē/
noun
a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

The Rep button has two choices:

I approve

I disapprove

In the case cited in the opening post the person awarding the red rep disapproved of a specific post so clicked on the I disapprove button registering his disapproval. That's the way it was set up 9 years ago, not three years ago when you showed up. Stop the revisionist nonsense.

I'm also familiar with the individual that handed out the neg rep discussed in the OP as I have been the beneficiary of his disapproval for the same issue. I also received positive reps from him on numerous times when he approved of a post of mine. Both those actions are his prerogative as a MEMBER consistent with the way the Rep feature was established when the board was founded.

 

[tko]

Yeah, right, moderators shouldn't moderate the board. The patients should run the asylum like a bunch of vigilantes.



The Rep button has two choices:

I approve

I disapprove

In the case cited in the opening post the person awarding the red rep disapproved of a specific post so clicked on the I disapprove button registering his disapproval. That's the way it was set up 9 years ago, not three years ago when you showed up. Stop the revisionist nonsense.

I'm also familiar with the individual that handed out the neg rep discussed in the OP as I have been the beneficiary of his disapproval for the same issue. I also received positive reps from him on numerous times when he approved of a post of mine. Both those actions are his prerogative as a MEMBER consistent with the way the Rep feature was established when the board was founded.

Charles Bronson, the Vigilante

 

[greyhammer90]

Yeah, right, moderators shouldn't moderate the board. The patients should run the asylum like a bunch of vigilantes.



The Rep button has two choices:

I approve

I disapprove

In the case cited in the opening post the person awarding the red rep disapproved of a specific post so clicked on the I disapprove button registering his disapproval. That's the way it was set up 9 years ago, not three years ago when you showed up. Stop the revisionist nonsense.

I'm also familiar with the individual that handed out the neg rep discussed in the OP as I have been the beneficiary of his disapproval for the same issue. I also received positive reps from him on numerous times when he approved of a post of mine. Both those actions are his prerogative as a MEMBER consistent with the way the Rep feature was established when the board was founded.

Every time someone on this board gets neg repped the thread disintegrates into a question of why and was it neg worthy. Like it or not, that's the culture of the board. It's what happens most of the time. We've repeatedly seen that this poster neg repping is actively causing multiple threads to get off topic because people get mad or want to know what the deal is. I find this neg rep worthy when it happens because I don't like off topic threads. I disapprove, and that's my prerogative.

 

[Irish#1]

I gave this some thought when I got neg repped for violating the Third Commandment. I concluded that there was nothing to do about it.

It seems to me that the general custom and practice on IE is to reserve neg reps for really objectionable posts rising to the level of serious disruptions or blatant fabrications. IMO cursing does not meet that standard.

But I think a poster should be able to neg rep whatever and whoever he wants. The neg-repped poster can then respond in kind (although that would be stooping to his level), call out the neg-repper publicly for giving a neg-rep under circumstances that puts him outside the bounds of our general custom and practice, or, to the extent the neg-repping reaches the level of an all-out assault on the cursing poster's reputation level, i.e. the level of harassment, involve a mod.

But as long as I'm just receiving an isolated neg rep here or there, I don't really care. Freedom of speech and all that. I have the right to curse and he has the right to express displeasure. I may find his mode of expressing displeasure offensive, but freedom of speech means "protecting the thought that we hate."

Totally agree with this.

We should be able to challenge a neg rep to an "arbitrator" and try to get the neg rep expunged from our IE record.

Same.

I usually only give neg reps for attacking another poster. I also like the idea of calling the person out if they give you a questionable neg rep but call them out in the thread it happened, don't create a thread just to attack them.

Very good idea.

I created one of those threads yesterday and it looks like it's been closed. I didn't say anything harsh or directly to the person. I simply asked what was up with him? A neg rep for saying GD in a joke, but he doesn't neg rep for the "F" word? lol

 

[Irish#1]

Yeah and I don't go in there and it is private I assume.

For mature adults only.

 

[ThePiombino]

Neg reps shouldn't exist. They are the embodiment of hypocrisy. There should only be reps and the ability to report a post. Neg reps are just dumb as proven by the good Admiral. There, I said it.

 

[wizards8507]

EDIT: Whiskey beat me to it (two pages ago).

 

[greyhammer90]

.

You just posted an image that has already been posted on this thread. You have lost 52 greyhammer gold.

 

[wizards8507]

You just posted an image that has already been posted on this thread. You have lost 52 greyhammer gold.

*Hangs head in shame.*

 

[BeauBenken]

Every time someone on this board gets neg repped the thread disintegrates into a question of why and was it neg worthy. Like it or not, that's the culture of the board. It's what happens most of the time. We've repeatedly seen that this poster neg repping is actively causing multiple threads to get off topic because people get mad or want to know what the deal is. I find this neg rep worthy when it happens because I don't like off topic threads. I disapprove, and that's my prerogative.

I thought it only took the Brent thread off topic. Are there more threads where this has lead to off topic conversation?

Furthermore, you can't blame his neg repping for someone else's inability to use the proper channel for their frustration.

 

[wizards8507]

Furthermore, you can't blame his neg repping for someone else's inability to use the proper channel for their frustration.

Agreed. If Bob neg reps John and then John freaks out within a thread, the derailment is on John.

 

[greyhammer90]

I thought it only took the Brent thread off topic. Are there more threads where this has lead to off topic conversation?

Furthermore, you can't blame his neg repping for someone else's inability to use the proper channel for their frustration.

Can't I?