OcUK's plans for the future and new blood...

Cosimo · 27 Jul 2010 at 10:05

Burnsy2023 said:
What would you define as a 'racial indiscretion' though? Surely that would be very difficult to mod consistently?

I don't know and it would take quite a time to define it as is the case with our laws. It would also be the same for the definition of what constitutes a thread as a candidate for banning. So you’re caught between a rock and a hard place.

Having said that it’s quite easy to ban the ones who are offensive against race, creed or colour. It doesn’t take much intelligence to spot a racist remark. So a few bans here and there will soon tone down the threads. People will get the message and we will return to another period of calm.

I don't envy your jobs, maybe you should get some more help.

Knubje · 27 Jul 2010 at 10:06

platypus said:
It's a nice idea with good intentions, but Rep systems don't really work.

*Gives bad rep*

platypus · 27 Jul 2010 at 10:09

Burnsy2023 said:
What would you define as a 'racial indiscretion' though? Surely that would be very difficult to mod consistently?

What percentage of black/white people have you banned :eek:

?

.

Knubje said:
*Gives bad rep*

Why I outta.....

.

Maccapacca · 27 Jul 2010 at 10:16

Burnsy2023 said:
What would people think if we banned threads relating to race, region and immigration?

Too complicated, "Was beaten up last night by two white guys" is that a thread about race or being beaten up, there will be a right answer also you have to be subjective

If you implement banning race religion and immigration you will fuel the wannabe dons who derail threads because someones sig is 1kb out or someone makes a spelling mistake. Leave the dons to do their own work

mast3r · 27 Jul 2010 at 11:05

good post and good luck.

I have one request : Remove the post count?
I often find myself reading utter crap, crap that seems to be there only for the one reason... Boost in post counts.

Gilly · 27 Jul 2010 at 11:29

Burnsy2023 said:
What would people think if we banned threads relating to race, region and immigration?

I think I'd be disappointed that a vocal minority were being pandered to.

Bar · 27 Jul 2010 at 11:47

At the moment the forum has a rule of:

FAQs said:
No swearing, posting of "adult" material, personal attacks or "trolling"

OcUK would like you and your whole family to learn and share via our forums. For this reason swearing and the posting of "adult" or offensive material is forbidden. Simply replacing some of the letters in a swearword with a * or any other character is not acceptable. If you must then please replace the whole word with ***** or other repeated character. We also expect members to behave respectfully and not launch personal or abusive attacks on other members. Those who post for the sole purpose of causing trouble are not welcome here and will be dealt with accordingly.

That covers all types of abuse including but not limited to homophobia, sexism, racism, ageism and any other type of ism that you can think of.

The mods are intrusted by the members to interpret that accordingly. This is done by becoming and remaining a member. If you are no longer happy with the decisions or enforcement of the rule you could always leave.

At the end of the day this is not a democracy it is a privately owned forum that can be run however the owner sees fit.

What might be an interesting idea is if the mods were to provide an example of an offence and create a poll to determine how the people would have voted for it. This would at least allow them to keep in touch with the feelings and overall mood of the forums members.

edit:

On a final note what I have always loved about the forums is they are nonspecific. When I infrequently report a post to a moderator it is done purely on the contents of the post. I do not look up who the individual is, what gender / race / age they are - its irrelevant. What I found offensive was what they said, not who they are. If the mods are following this principle it should allow for a greater degree of impartiality.

Tute · 27 Jul 2010 at 11:49

skippi90 said:
The world would be a boring place if people were constantly wary of offending others.

On a side note, you only have to look at the changes in the UK over the last ten years to understand that comment.

gambitt · 27 Jul 2010 at 11:53

Trolling is allowed if you are a good friend of the mods.

Gilly · 27 Jul 2010 at 11:54

gambitt said:
Trolling is allowed if you are a good friend of the mods.

:/

Bar · 27 Jul 2010 at 11:56

gambitt said:
Trolling is allowed if you are a good friend of the mods.

There is always going to be a bit more leeway when it comes to regular forum contributers. But thats common in all walks of life.

People who are known and usually always contribute positively will be given more leeway than someone who posts infrequently / just started and begins to break the rules.

Its a common sense approach. Also what you may not see is whether or not the mods have a word in private with the individuals concerned and ask them to moderate their behaviour accordingly.

Burnsy2023 · 27 Jul 2010 at 11:58

gambitt said:
Trolling is allowed if you are a good friend of the mods.

Such as?

Bar said:
Its a common sense approach. Also what you may not see is whether or not the mods have a word in private with the individuals concerned and ask them to moderate their behaviour accordingly.

FYI, this happens frequently.

Yas786 · 27 Jul 2010 at 12:05

RDM said:
The "Draw Mohammed" day thread. You made some less than delightful remarks regarding Hinduism.

Maybe i did but i also apologised and they werent offensive like a few other remarks in that thread ie using the Quran as toilet paper as one delightful poster put it....try again

Gilly said:
I think I'd be disappointed that a vocal minority were being pandered to.

Same here its not something i would want to see happen myself...

[TW]Fox · 27 Jul 2010 at 12:16

gambitt said:
Trolling is allowed if you are a good friend of the mods.

The problem with trolling is that its the most ridiculously subject term ever and it's very hard to define. Also, on a forum where debate is allowed and encouraged one mans 'troll' is another's interesting debate or position of devils advocate.

Trolling is a hugely annoying term - it originally came from Usenet and described somebody who post something in order to get two seperate groups of people arguing. The troll would never post again, he would post only one, and his post would spark an argument he would sit back and watch and NOT participate in (For example, a cross-post between a gay group and a religious group asking about Jesus and homosexuals).

It seems to have evolved since then and taken on various different meanings but worringly the most common meaning for troll seems to be 'Somebody who posts something I don't personally like or who does not personally agree with my point of view'.

It's a dangerous precedent to start banning people for that.

lixxus · 27 Jul 2010 at 12:22

I'm glad this thread was made because people can now express there concerns. I personally would be worried if I was ocuk on how my company was bieng perceived.
I know people that refuse to buy from ocuk and some that have left because of racist biggots.

I can imagine if I created a thread mentioning race being a problem on yhis forum etc before this thread was made. I would have been have told i have a chip on my shoulder.

platypus · 27 Jul 2010 at 13:06

sandman06 said:
I'm glad this thread was made because people can now express there concerns. I personally would be worried if I was ocuk on how my company was bieng perceived.
I know people that refuse to buy from ocuk and some that have left because of racist biggots.

Not being able to differentiate your perceptions of where comments are coming from is just as big a problem as posting offensive comments.

People that refuse to buy from a shop because someone unrelated said something to offend them says more about that person than the shop.

Xinn · 27 Jul 2010 at 13:08

sandman06 said:
I
I know people that refuse to buy from ocuk

Quite pathetic really that somebody would not buy a product from somewhere because of an opinion of a person unassociated with the company on an internet forum.

If I had to choose any improvement it would as previously said by other, to remove the post count. Some people do seem to think they are high and mighty because they have been posting here longer or have more posts than somebody else.

Infact if removing post count, remove join date as well as both are as pointless as the other with the exception of the occasional post count charity auction.

Danthus · 27 Jul 2010 at 13:10

Does it? Unfortunately people are more likely to associate the comment with OcUK rather than a tiny username to the left,

86JR · 27 Jul 2010 at 13:19

Janesy B said:
Absolutely full of **** as always.

I'm no saint but how much grovelling did you have to do to get yourself un-perma'd? You seriously need to sort that massive chip on your shoulder.

None at all. Again as usual you make presumptions and then sprout them around as facts.

eatcustard · 27 Jul 2010 at 13:19

OldCoals said:
Does it? Unfortunately people are more likely to associate the comment with OcUK rather than a tiny username to the left,

more fool them.

Mental note.

Dont buy from OC as someone on here does not like the colour red.

Some people need to live in the real world........

........The real world is a nasty place, you dont always have it your way.

OcUK's plans for the future and new blood...

Tea Drinker