GETTING IN TROUBLE/LOSING PERMISSION

[+ecanderson]

@Parrot

I don't see the distinction.  I read "please do so constructively" not as disallowing criticism of the opinion, just a request to do it civilly.

[+Seeker_Knight]

2 hours ago, ParrotRobAndCeCe said:

 

So which is it?  Here we have one mod saying you'd have been ok if you criticized the "opinion" not the person, and a second mod saying you can't do either.  I mean, I'm all for law and order, but it should be applied uniformly.

Kinda the way I saw it too, but I don't dare say anything that might be construed as offensive....

Seeker_Knight

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

59 minutes ago, Seeker_Knight said:

Kinda the way I saw it too, but I don't dare say anything that might be construed as offensive....

Seeker_Knight

 

Yeah I'm thinking that might get me a second point.

 

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, Seeker_Knight said:

criticized the "opinion" not the person

 

People criticize" the opinion, not the person" all the time in the forums. I understand the warning to mean, don't be offensive to the commentator. 

 

The complete context of the warning note from Rock Chalk outlined what was considered offensive:

"Sound like a real nice guy to me! Yeah right!" 

 

It comes across as a personal attack on the commentator's personality, rather than a criticism of the commentator's opinion.

 

[+The A-Team]

In order to help clarify what's allowed and what isn't, here are a couple of examples:

1. "I understand why you think that, but I disagree and think that..."

2. "You're an idiot"

 

1 is acceptable. 2 is not.

[+on4bam]

I still think you should be able to write stuff that "might" be offensive. Some people are just to easily offended and if they are they should use the ignore list. In any case, I would say what I write here in person too if that should be the standard to follow.

 

As for the above, both are acceptable in my view (who knows, it might be true ). It might be a cultural thing though.

 

 

[+The A-Team]

8 minutes ago, on4bam said:

As for the above, both are acceptable in my view (who knows, it might be true ). It might be a cultural thing though.

 

Just to be clear, when I said "acceptable", I meant acceptable as far as the Terms of Use for this forum. What might be acceptable culturally in your region may not be acceptable here. I've been known to call people idiots in real-life, but I wouldn't do so here.

[+on4bam]

4 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Just to be clear, when I said "acceptable", I meant acceptable as far as the Terms of Use for this forum.

 

The whole discussion made me think of a comedy sketch long ago here on TV.

Drunk guy gets stopped by police and a discussion unfolds. Guy says, "if I say you're an idiot do I get a ticket?". Cop says "yes". Guys says "I I think you're an idiot, do I get a ticket?" Cop says "No, you can think whatever you want". Guy says "just what I was thinking"

 

Or, as Ricky Gervais said: "Everyone has the right to be offended. Everyone has the right to offend. But no one has the right to never be offended".

 

 

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

3 hours ago, The A-Team said:

In order to help clarify what's allowed and what isn't, here are a couple of examples:

1. "I understand why you think that, but I disagree and think that..."

2. "You're an idiot"

 

1 is acceptable. 2 is not.

 

Bah.  What if they ARE an idiot, though?

[+Max and 99]

34 minutes ago, ParrotRobAndCeCe said:

 

Bah.  What if they ARE an idiot, though?

Then you have to come up with a code word. 

We use it frequently in our line of work. 

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

Then you have to come up with a code word. 

We use it frequently in our line of work. 

Yep. Here's a good starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_error

[+ecanderson]

5 hours ago, The A-Team said:

In order to help clarify what's allowed and what isn't, here are a couple of examples:

1. "I understand why you think that, but I disagree and think that..."

2. "You're an idiot"

 

1 is acceptable. 2 is not.

Although in some instances, both can be true at the same time <g>.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

Yep. Here's a good starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_error

 

Yep, I'm familiar with all of those.  I have a very low tolerance for, ahem, "problem users".  Fortunately, my days of supporting end users directly are way behind me because I don't have the patience to deal with them anymore.

[+Seeker_Knight]

9 hours ago, The A-Team said:

In order to help clarify what's allowed and what isn't, here are a couple of examples:

1. "I understand why you think that, but I disagree and think that..."

2. "You're an idiot"

 

1 is acceptable. 2 is not.

Tough for a guy who used to think that number two was the polite way of just not physically clobbering some "idiot". Where and when I grew up, that WAS the kinder and gentler alternative! Being TOO stupid or TOO arrogant actually landed you a sound beating. Lawyers and law suits took that sting out of society. To quote a friend of mine "The internet allows cowards to think they can disrespect others, and shove their ideals down anyone's throat, without physical consequences". This has now evolved into "The internet now allows cowards to adopt any attitude they want toward others, whether it disrespects them or not, without the possible threat of someone disagreeing with them or calling them bad names".

Seeker_Knight

[+Seeker_Knight]

9 hours ago, on4bam said:

I still think you should be able to write stuff that "might" be offensive. Some people are just to easily offended and if they are they should use the ignore list. In any case, I would say what I write here in person too if that should be the standard to follow.

 

As for the above, both are acceptable in my view (who knows, it might be true ). It might be a cultural thing though.

 

 

This is most definitely a result of a cultural thing. Our entire society is littered with soft, thin skinned wimps that get offended by everyone and everything they come in contact with. We have gone from a warrior culture to something nobody 50 years ago would have ever imagined our country to become. We are all in deep doo doo if we ever get into a real all out war where EVERYONE has to go and fight. For now, we only send off the tough guys/gals who choose a military life. What happens if they ever start the draft back up and the rest have to go face the horrors of war. At that point WE ARE ALL DOOMED!

Seeker_Knight

[Keystone]

Let's stick with discussing the Geocaching Forums, thanks.  There's an Off Topic forum section available for discussing society's imminent doom.

[spookypants]

On 2/8/2020 at 3:36 PM, Seeker_Knight said:

 

I have no idea what the points are, but I have one of them apparently forever!

how do you know you have one? all of a sudden im worried that i do.

[+Max and 99]

14 minutes ago, spookypants said:

how do you know you have one? all of a sudden im worried that i do.

I have absolutely no idea!

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, spookypants said:

how do you know you have one? all of a sudden im worried that i do.

 

Read page 1 of the comments. I seems that if you get a point for bad behaviour a reviewer will let you know.

 

I once got a warning, years ago. The reviewer let me know. He didn't say anything about points. Maybe that's a new thing, to help forum moderators keep track of repetitive bad behaviour. 

Edited April 6, 2020 by L0ne.R

[+cerberus1]

58 minutes ago, spookypants said:

how do you know you have one? all of a sudden im worried that i do.

 

When this post "point" thing first started, for a very-brief time negative "points" were shown. 

They were removed when folks asked "what's that for... ?"     AFAIK, you won't know until you get a message from someone.

It's possible I guess that if one keeps opening enough "improvidently "  bumped threads,  responding to people from posts years earlier, they may get a warning from a Mod too, as a "heads up" that they're pushing it.   

 

[+colleda]

1 minute ago, cerberus1 said:

 

When this post "point" thing first started, for a very-brief time negative "points" were shown. 

They were removed when folks asked "what's that for... ?"     AFAIK, you won't know until you get a message from someone.

It's possible I guess that if one keeps opening enough "improvidently "  bumped threads,  responding to people from posts years earlier, they may get a warning from a Mod too, as a "heads up" that they're pushing it.   

 

Point taken.

[spookypants]

5 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

"improvidently "  bumped threads,

yeah i accidentally did that 

[Keystone]

I am closing this improvidently bumped thread.  There was a prior moderator warning to stay on topic.  It's a bad idea to ignore those public warnings, as private warnings typically follow.