Gilly wrote:
In some cases, it may have been the question of whom she was targetting that precipitated such apathy.

In other cases an admirable but unwise loyalty to the "all welcome" ethos that was making a lemming of the site.

Yes, but we'd have to see what other people think of that scenario, since WUB & myself came up with 2 different answers.

If that poster has nothing against mixed race marriages as such, but was arguing about it causing the end of a race, would it necessarily be thought to be a hate inspired comment? (Those are not my personal views btw).

*Edit* My computere's running slow - this was in response to your response before last, mikey.

andyh wrote:
Did SZ?

Gilly wrote: I wasn't here to see that, but it seems to me based on what I've heard that this is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be clamped down on. But then it also shows what I was saying that everyone has a different interpretation of what is and isn't acceptable. But I don't see how you can want to have a pleasant, amicable community, and then defend the right of someone to attack other people personally, particularly when some of them are demonstrably offended.

Its the racial and 'class' stuff that pisses me off the most.
I dunno how anyone can even put it 'politely' tbh...

With silvershine he/she can change and do something about it or carry on and eventually annoy enough ppl.
For the moment its not in your face stuff if you get my drift.

mikey mikey wrote:
Yep, it wasn't that blatant.
Does it really bother you that much?

It wasn't in your face, Andy, but it was in other peoples'. So, for complete clarity, sneaky shit-stirring about members including admin is OK, but overt aggression isn't. Is that how people want it?

Gilly wrote:
It was what I would call tongue in cheek, as I said earlier an apology would have gone a long way towards solving the whole thing completely imho.
Mikey gave much better than he took thats for sure

Tbh I think that verbally attacking and insulting other members is totally unnaceptable. However, some of the members here are foul mouthed and that's not a problem for me. What do others think? Disgusting jokes and toilet humour is one thing, malicious trolling is another.

andyh wrote:
Thank you (*bows*)

I am very appreciative of the support I got from people with SS.

I noticed that the evening that i was away (gig) sh/he started on others (Dawn/Gilly?).

If i hadn't got involved, somebody else would have been.

In the long run, though, I lost a lot of "friends" through all this.

andyh wrote:
Maybe Mikey did, but she was not tongue in cheek regarding the admin / Dawn / Psketti etc. And whether he gave as good as he got is immaterial. It wasn't tongue in cheek - it was casting aspersions. It doesn't matter about her now - it's whether or not that's the precedent. That's what I'm trying to get at.

*Edit*- No, she never 'started' on me. She was polite to me.

r.e. the recent instance cited:
From the t&c's ...

(iv) you war­rant that the mate­r­ial you sub­mit is not obscene, offen­sive, defam­a­tory of any person/​group or oth­er­wise illegal
(v) you agree not to post mate­r­ial which is delib­er­ately intended to upset other users

On any other site I would have had zero hesitation as a mod in booting the individual for breach of those t&c's.
I threw it out to the membership here to test the community management ethos.

Any member could have drawn up that poll in theory, no-one did. So I did it to address the issue asap.
That was then apparently a flaw, lol.
Not because of the issue or the proposed terms of the poll but because of who raised it and their nominal role.

I presented no case for or against but referred folks to the members posting history to draw their own conclusions.
Imo if you're not prepared to investigate yourself, don't sit on the jury.

It was at the conclusion of that process I determined the mod task was superficial and I resigned the role rather than maintain the pretence.

That stuff needs to be clearly sorted out or this group will chase it's tail forever.

^ Exactly.

Back to the Tribunal Representation for Tarterus:

Any guidlines about "intended to offend" opens posters up to disingenuous claims: "e.g anti-German racism"

Again, just playing Lawyer for Lucifer

feather wrote: It's hard for me to judge as I haven't witnessed what occurred, but I do think personal remarks are unacceptable. I don't quite understand why people defended the person in question. For that matter, has (s)he been seen since?mikey mikey wrote: I don't think we have had or will have any problems with this, though. I think it is quite clear that the "wasn't Hitler a great bloke because he was a vegetarian" crowd are not welcome and would not be tolerated here.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Mission accomplished

No, she said she was leaving now that she's confirmed her suspicions about this place. I think her unspecified suspicions about this place were what she commented on in her opening post, which people attempted to placate her about.

Whether she/he ventures back remains to be seen.

Wasn't she always kicking off over at the 'other place'?

Dunno - she first made a statement about when she'd first joined the other place, then claimed later, never to have been a member at the other place. But he/she knew a heck of a lot about it. Enough for her to claim all those people here with banned under their names there had been up to some mysterious, secret naughtiness that she 'knew' the 'truth' about, etc etc.

She was there, I remember her flame war with Domathy.