Why was my post deleted?!
What law did I break that time!!!
The main body of it could have stayed with just the one swear word removed!!
I seriously don't get this Woody.
There's a football thread on here which has the following line;
"...not only a cheating deago team but also a
cheating referee, hail, hail, no huns allowed to respond."
So let me get this straight, making racist remarks is allowed to stay, but me calling Glen Hoddle a cunt for insulting every disabled person alive, is not?
During the so called war on Iraq, some of the threads were littered with borderline xenophobic and racist remarks yet they stayed!
Me calling Baddiel a cunt, is not!
On this forum, if I so chose, I could talk about fucking a woman up the arse; pissing over her; shitting; fisting; spraying spunk over her face and any other form of sexual act, both straight or deviant, yet certain sarcastic comments of mine are totally deleted!
Now I can understand the odd comment being wiped and fair enough, I hold my hands up to the odd comment that may have pushed it. I've openly said this on the boards, but censoring every negative thing I say is totallitarian in it's own right.
Pray tell, exactly what are the new rules of the forum or the ones that I've overlooked?
I understand this is the O/T forum and not the OTT forum, but I have given examples above of pushing the envelope.
For what it's worth, I did enjoy the openess of the O/T forum.
Attn: Woody
-
Holden MacGroyn
Re: Sarcasm
I kinda figured the flow of the train of insulting thought gave it away though.
Just to make sure everyone is clear on this, as much as I absolutely hate certain celebs & express a desire to want to stick a bullet in their head...it doesn't mean I'm actually gonna do it! But by it's very nature, it doesn't mean I'm gonna chum Baddiel up the cloaca.
That's the nature of a rant. Some of the posts that I, along with a few others, have made, have been amusing and I know for a fact certain forumites have laughed their heads off, perhaps even Woody felt the corners of his mouth turn upwards!
Anyone remember the episode of The Young Ones where Vyvian loses his shit and starts a rant about how "The Good Life" makes him absolutely bloody sick? Yeah? Well thats me that is. Just ranting!
Just to make sure everyone is clear on this, as much as I absolutely hate certain celebs & express a desire to want to stick a bullet in their head...it doesn't mean I'm actually gonna do it! But by it's very nature, it doesn't mean I'm gonna chum Baddiel up the cloaca.
That's the nature of a rant. Some of the posts that I, along with a few others, have made, have been amusing and I know for a fact certain forumites have laughed their heads off, perhaps even Woody felt the corners of his mouth turn upwards!
Anyone remember the episode of The Young Ones where Vyvian loses his shit and starts a rant about how "The Good Life" makes him absolutely bloody sick? Yeah? Well thats me that is. Just ranting!
-
buttsie
Re: Attn: Woody
There seem 2 lessons to be learned here
Stop being NEGATIVE & ABUSIVE when posting especially when mentioning Baddiel or Skinner...self explantory I would have thought
cheers
B....OZ Food for Thought
Stop being NEGATIVE & ABUSIVE when posting especially when mentioning Baddiel or Skinner...self explantory I would have thought
cheers
B....OZ Food for Thought
Re: Attn: Woody
fwiw, i didn't remove your post...
you equate descriptions of certain sex acts on our forums with the use of abusive and agressive language: er, this is a site dedicated to adult entertainment - porn, if you will. don't you think people expect to encounter a few ripe words in relation to matters of a sexual nature? and do you honestly believe that depictions of sex and violence are in any way contextually equivalent - outside of the act of rape, perhaps?
the fact is, all moderated forums have their own rules and their own foibles. who knows - there may even be a forum out there which forbids anyone from posting UNLESS they include threatening or abusive language! if so, then great! those interested can use it without fear of having posts deleted or tampered with! however, that is not the case at bgafd. why? well, it simply isn't our style. yes, we decide what the rules are but we also try and keep our end of the social contract by making it as clear as we possibly can what is and is not acceptable (have you seen how detailed the faq is?).
by way of comparison - when you visit someones house, you don't just stick your dirty boots on their coffee table because that's what you do in your own gaff. you automatically take account of the likelihood that your host will have his/her own standards of acceptable behaviour and modify your actions accordingly. this is an exact comparison...
a site like bgafd is not a public footpath; there is no right of way. maybe it's partly our fault because we don't have a registration/membership process, as do most forums. if we were more like a club, perhaps people would more readily accept the need for rules and regulations. the reason we don't have any membership requirements is because we like to think most people are able to appreciate that freedom of access is conditional upon a modicum of self policing: i.e. you may not be able to say what you want in EXACTLY the manner you want but, within the bounds of everyday norms, you can pretty much express any sentiment/opinion that occurs to you - including those that touch upon glenn hoddles reprehensible philosophising on the causative origins of disability.
given that... you've now had numerous posts removed. can you honestly say that you didn't for a second expect the same response from us, with regard to your hoddle post, as to previous posts made by you which used the same tone/language? i would be surprised if you hadn't but even if such were the case, the boundaries are surely getting clearer, are they not?
anyhoo, with regard to the language issue, there will shortly be an update to the faq that should, hopefully, clarify once and for all our position - if it isn't clear already.
as to accusations of totalitarianism: you posted a link to a forum the other day, where visitors can happily slag off and abuse other individuals to their hearts content. is it really too much of a hassle to go there, when the mood takes you? we are but one site amid a constellation of forums, many of which may have no problem with what it is you want to say and, more importantly, HOW you want to say it. if we controlled the net in it's entirety, you might have a point - but fortunately for you (and us), such is not the case. if push came to shove, you could even set up your own board; one dedicated to providing a platform for those with a wont to abuse the high and mighty with impunity. it's not difficult technically and it needn't cost you a penny (this isn't meant facetitiously, btw).
as for the "inconsistencies" that you refer to: as has been pointed out in the past to other aggrieved posters (believe it or not, you're not the first), we are not a bunch of white-coated, laboratory technicians working to scrupulously observed scientific principles. we have as consistent an approach to the way in which we deal with each post as is possible, given the number that we receive and the amount of time we have to deal with them. some of the examples you cite may be the result of our conciously erring on the side of leniency - it's hard to get the balance right sometimes. fundamentally though, we don't edit or delete posts on a personal basis but as a result of applying the faq. where the faq starts to lag behind developments on the forum we try and update it, asap, to reflect the changed circumstances. until recently, persistently abusive and agressive language didn't figure prominently among our concerns but of late it has - primarily as a result of the many such posts made by yourself and magoo.
as alec has pointed out elsewhere, we are very familiar with the law of unintended consequences and the subtle manner in which it can operate - especially with regard to the forums. in sum, other forumites may find your posts hilarious but from our point of view, they are negative and threaten to change the atmosphere of the forums - and we don't want that to happen.
we are not in the habit of barring anyone who isn't, in our estimation, deliberately trolling bgfad but we do reserve the right to run the site in a way that we're happy with. frankly, we put too much into this place to do anything else...
you equate descriptions of certain sex acts on our forums with the use of abusive and agressive language: er, this is a site dedicated to adult entertainment - porn, if you will. don't you think people expect to encounter a few ripe words in relation to matters of a sexual nature? and do you honestly believe that depictions of sex and violence are in any way contextually equivalent - outside of the act of rape, perhaps?
the fact is, all moderated forums have their own rules and their own foibles. who knows - there may even be a forum out there which forbids anyone from posting UNLESS they include threatening or abusive language! if so, then great! those interested can use it without fear of having posts deleted or tampered with! however, that is not the case at bgafd. why? well, it simply isn't our style. yes, we decide what the rules are but we also try and keep our end of the social contract by making it as clear as we possibly can what is and is not acceptable (have you seen how detailed the faq is?).
by way of comparison - when you visit someones house, you don't just stick your dirty boots on their coffee table because that's what you do in your own gaff. you automatically take account of the likelihood that your host will have his/her own standards of acceptable behaviour and modify your actions accordingly. this is an exact comparison...
a site like bgafd is not a public footpath; there is no right of way. maybe it's partly our fault because we don't have a registration/membership process, as do most forums. if we were more like a club, perhaps people would more readily accept the need for rules and regulations. the reason we don't have any membership requirements is because we like to think most people are able to appreciate that freedom of access is conditional upon a modicum of self policing: i.e. you may not be able to say what you want in EXACTLY the manner you want but, within the bounds of everyday norms, you can pretty much express any sentiment/opinion that occurs to you - including those that touch upon glenn hoddles reprehensible philosophising on the causative origins of disability.
given that... you've now had numerous posts removed. can you honestly say that you didn't for a second expect the same response from us, with regard to your hoddle post, as to previous posts made by you which used the same tone/language? i would be surprised if you hadn't but even if such were the case, the boundaries are surely getting clearer, are they not?
anyhoo, with regard to the language issue, there will shortly be an update to the faq that should, hopefully, clarify once and for all our position - if it isn't clear already.
as to accusations of totalitarianism: you posted a link to a forum the other day, where visitors can happily slag off and abuse other individuals to their hearts content. is it really too much of a hassle to go there, when the mood takes you? we are but one site amid a constellation of forums, many of which may have no problem with what it is you want to say and, more importantly, HOW you want to say it. if we controlled the net in it's entirety, you might have a point - but fortunately for you (and us), such is not the case. if push came to shove, you could even set up your own board; one dedicated to providing a platform for those with a wont to abuse the high and mighty with impunity. it's not difficult technically and it needn't cost you a penny (this isn't meant facetitiously, btw).
as for the "inconsistencies" that you refer to: as has been pointed out in the past to other aggrieved posters (believe it or not, you're not the first), we are not a bunch of white-coated, laboratory technicians working to scrupulously observed scientific principles. we have as consistent an approach to the way in which we deal with each post as is possible, given the number that we receive and the amount of time we have to deal with them. some of the examples you cite may be the result of our conciously erring on the side of leniency - it's hard to get the balance right sometimes. fundamentally though, we don't edit or delete posts on a personal basis but as a result of applying the faq. where the faq starts to lag behind developments on the forum we try and update it, asap, to reflect the changed circumstances. until recently, persistently abusive and agressive language didn't figure prominently among our concerns but of late it has - primarily as a result of the many such posts made by yourself and magoo.
as alec has pointed out elsewhere, we are very familiar with the law of unintended consequences and the subtle manner in which it can operate - especially with regard to the forums. in sum, other forumites may find your posts hilarious but from our point of view, they are negative and threaten to change the atmosphere of the forums - and we don't want that to happen.
we are not in the habit of barring anyone who isn't, in our estimation, deliberately trolling bgfad but we do reserve the right to run the site in a way that we're happy with. frankly, we put too much into this place to do anything else...
-
magoo
Re: Attn: Woody
Woodgnome wrote inter alia:-
"we don't edit or delete posts on a personal basis but as a result of applying the faq."
Apart from that time you subjected me to random deletions for arguing with that Bob Spunkhouse bloke.
But I do understand your reasoning in the rest of your post and for the most part I agree. I think perhaps the intention behind the posts of Mr MacGroyn and myself is misunderstood. I have no real hatred for celebs like Mr Baddiel and Mr Skinner etc. The ripe language and colourfull insults are purely supposed to make people laugh. I am not sitting typing them and foaming at the mouth in anger, I am actually smiling at the language used. Its just that growing up on a diet of Peter Cooks Derek and Clive, Viz and Rik Mayall I find foul language funny if used with imagination and flair.
"we don't edit or delete posts on a personal basis but as a result of applying the faq."
Apart from that time you subjected me to random deletions for arguing with that Bob Spunkhouse bloke.
But I do understand your reasoning in the rest of your post and for the most part I agree. I think perhaps the intention behind the posts of Mr MacGroyn and myself is misunderstood. I have no real hatred for celebs like Mr Baddiel and Mr Skinner etc. The ripe language and colourfull insults are purely supposed to make people laugh. I am not sitting typing them and foaming at the mouth in anger, I am actually smiling at the language used. Its just that growing up on a diet of Peter Cooks Derek and Clive, Viz and Rik Mayall I find foul language funny if used with imagination and flair.
-
Holden MacGroyn
Re: Attn: Woody
Totally fair enough!
Thankyou for the response.
I shall be less of a Rik Mayall in future or at least try.
Still think the Hoddle post was valid though;)
Thankyou for the response.
I shall be less of a Rik Mayall in future or at least try.
Still think the Hoddle post was valid though;)
-
magoo
Re: Attn: Woody
Woodgnome also thought it was valid judging by his comments. He did say you can express an opinion but only in polite terms. I think it was deleted due to aggressive language rather than the message behind it.
I didnt see the Hoddle post but if you called him names for his repulsive comments about the disabled then I am with you on that mate.
And just to lighten things up on the subject of footballers crimes against music. Remember Kev Keegans effort? Dire. And what about John Barnes appalling attempt at rapping on the New Order thing? Dreadfull.
I didnt see the Hoddle post but if you called him names for his repulsive comments about the disabled then I am with you on that mate.
And just to lighten things up on the subject of footballers crimes against music. Remember Kev Keegans effort? Dire. And what about John Barnes appalling attempt at rapping on the New Order thing? Dreadfull.
-
the duke
Re: Attn: Woody
my good fellows i often like to past the time of day abusing celebs type people and i have found a most accomodating site
just use the shallow grave section
just use the shallow grave section