Tech: Chat Room Banning

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 12:39 PM

Not YOU Mr Red... heh

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Mr Red
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 06:14 AM

I shaked it - now what?

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 10:59 PM

Death threats... in a chat room... please...

Ya... they really need to be taken seriously...

*sheesh*

Give yer stupid head a shake...

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 07:59 PM

It seems to be all about Clinton and the fact that he can't understand that death threats are a tad different.....

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 06:52 PM

Oh No.... Don't start that one again........

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: MBSLynne
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 10:21 AM

Yes, of course...this one. This isn't a discussion on banning in the forum, but banning in the chat room which is a different matter. Also, I don't think foul language and abuse aimed at particular individuals, and death threats really comes under the category of freedom of opinion. I don't think there's much if any censorship or banning goes on in the threads is there?

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: UncleToad
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 08:51 AM

Are there forums where you can truly express yourself and say exactly what you feel about any subject (regardless of how sensitive) without being "banned" or deleted?

Uncle(JustCurious)Toad

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Mr Red
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 09:44 AM

Clinton

We all deal with jerks in our own way - 10 people all talking to each other have to go with the flow. One jerk and the flow is diverted. People would stay away and all you have left is jerks.

Find other targets if you dun gotts spout. Spout here. We can ignoring you. If that's OK with everybody.

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 07:10 AM

Hmm...okay you do get bars where people insult you, but by and large you don't there again. And this is our local. I think the management is quite right to do whatever they can to keep things nice.

Occasionally I find myself retreating from threads were the invective gets a bit too near the knuckle. Its easy to offend sensibilities near election time particularly when people are so fired up about their candidate.

Similarly many people(myself included) consider the way they have gone about their music to be their life's work. What you reject in your influences is almost as important as you take on board .. Its easy to cut deeper than you intend and really insult somebody by just saying what are the basic precepts for your working day.

I will make it my early new years resolution to try not to respond to the playfully snotty and the diametrically opposed to everything I believe about the nature of folk music.

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 02:32 AM

My MMD struck again...

Spellcheckers are wonderful - tell you that the word exists but not that it is the right word...

Your freedom to wave your fist around stops at the end of my nose.

Allegedly by John Wayne.

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 11:45 PM

Well, i am relatively new to Mudcat, but i have never seen the type of abuse being referred in the threads. It strikes me that the of a**sehole dealing it out is probably looking for an instant reaction, like those kids (or sometimes, sadly, adults) who do the same thing in the real world-'What? You mean i have to wait a whole day for a response to my obnoxious remark? I'm of to torture some more cats again....'

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:38 PM

Dang, Clinton. Get a life.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:32 PM

There is little about which much can be done to appease all or most oftener than sometimes of infrequently on the rare occasion when . . . well, you know what I mean.

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:20 PM

It means you can't read past an obvious typo sinsull...

"when faced with such persistant and continuously repugnant behaviour, isn't it just a lot more efficient just to ban the person?"

Exactly like they DON'T do in the threads?   

That inconsistency is my point...

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: SINSULL
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:02 PM

Stoops at the end of my nose???? What the hell does that mean?

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 07:28 PM

Your freedom to wave your fist around stoops at the end of my nose.

Allegedly by John Wayne.

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 10:07 PM

If the incident being referred to is the incident i think is being referred to, then the individual in question was being highly offensive for no apparent reason, and was actually threatening several other people, myself being one of them. Although this person could not have carried out these threats, it's not inconcievable that someone might believe they could, and being concerned for your physical welfare is a long way off from feeling offended.

This person made a conscious choice to come onto Mudchat and conduct themselves in an offensive and threatening manner, and from what i witnissed this seemed to be their only purpose in joining.

I hold true that freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, and also that if we don't believe in freedom of speech for those we disagree with we don't believe in it at all. However, if someone joins an online community of their own free will, which like any gathering of people has it's own explicit and implicit social protocols and willfully and knowingly proceeds to break those protocols, then surely it's perfectly reasonable for that community to ban that individual?

They can still go and spew their obnoxious vitriol in a thousand other places, but it's reasonable to expect that they should conform to codes of behaviour expected of them in a group that they joined volintarily.

Yes, the ignore button is there and would be appropriate in a one off instance, but when faced with such persistant and continuously repugnant behaviour, isn't it just a lot more efficient just to ban the person?

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 11:18 AM

Pinky, Are You Pondering What I'm Pondering?

I think so Brain, but this time you put the trousers on the chimp.

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: MBSLynne
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 06:43 AM

Well I know who Pinky and Perky were........

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 05:26 AM

I know who Pinky Brown was, if that helps.
Giok

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Oct 04 - 12:42 AM

Absolutely right, but there's still the burning question-----who was Pinky Lee?

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 07:40 AM

Mr Red that sounds similar to the definition of socialism to me. In which the stated objective is to RAISE everybody up to the same level, and the unavoidable outcome is to LOWER everybody to the same level.
School classes also go at the rate of the slowest people, thus disadvantaging the brighter pupils.
So as has been said, ignore the shit stirrers, for to join them brings us down to their level.
Giok

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 07:11 AM

This is NOT about you Sorcha

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 07:56 AM

Nuke 'em all!!! Nuke 'em all!!!
The long and the short and the tall!!!
There's too much commotion,
Your side of the ocean,
So Dear old Mudchat, Nuke 'em all!!!


So that's what the Doors are for...

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 06:13 AM

ignoring jerks in the chat room by switching them out is not a complete solution - those that don't or haven't figured how to yet get the responses. It controls the debate. It is like the tailgating motorist on a wet motorway - one innocent event canbn trigger a mass pile-up because that's the way a percentage drive. We are always controlled by the miscreant in a free-for-all society. Freedom is a myth - we are contrtolled and control others - not everyone sees that as a RESPONSIBILITY. Citizenship should be conferred not a right. Nuke em all I say - if that's OK with everyone else...........

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:51 AM

for what its worth,...

i'm sorry that happened to you, Sorcha, it must have been awful.

i have spent lots of time in the chat room here, and have never tried any other ones. it has helped me to get to know catters all around the globe. Ive had some fantastic discussions with different people in there and lots of fun. ive never had a bad experience in the chat room and hope people who havent tried it arent put off by this event. or by the lack of punctuation.

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Teresa
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 03:16 AM

My philosophy is to give the offensive ... thing no attention at all, except to nuke 'em with permanent banning. I.E. ignore in the chat, with the appropriate button if necessary, then send private messages to those-who-can-do-something-about-it. No fuss for anyone, and the troll gets no pleasure out of it.

Scorpion comes in, someone with big boots stomps on, end of scorpion.

T

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Sorcha
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 12:34 AM

OK, OK....the person was attacking me and I wish you would all just let it drop. I was NOT the person who sent messages to Joe, Pene and Max....I was going to ingnore it. Please, just stop, please? It was awful enough the first time. This is getting tedious.

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:04 PM

When you can understand that - with all the necessary correct vocal inflections and accents - and say it using them all correctly - you may call yourself an 'Honorary Aussie', Liz...

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:14 PM

We never have that trouble with you Dead - we just follow the smell of gin and there you are! If your glass is empty, we just put more gin in it, and that's all we need to know!

Fooles - as in 'Which one of you bastards called this bastard a bastard?'?

LTS

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 09:32 AM

I'm not getting on your bus!
Giok

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Dead Horse
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 05:29 AM

CH:- "Besides... as I said to someone the other day... people in the chat room are only as real as YOU chose to allow them to be..."

That is the only trouble with Mudcat gatherings, the people turn out to be REAL, and with a brain like mine, you can't remember what they have posted or what their interests are! That leaves me floundering for quite a while, hoping that I don't say the wrong thing, like "How is the shakey-egg practise coming?" to someone who is a professional sitar exponent & black belt in Origami.
So if I seem aloof when we meet, it's just that I'M busy wondering who the bejasus I am, and where the gin is at?

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 05:29 AM

Sorry Liz,I too wasn't there and somehow got hold of the idea that someone had been having a go at you. However for them to have gotten into the chatroom they of course must have registered, so I assume the management can identify their computer and block it. Just hope it was a rogue element, and not a disgruntled Catter.
Giok

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 05:13 AM

Of course, there is the Great Aussie Tradition of calling your best mate a bastard, but you would never call a stranger that in public unless you meant to insult them! Context!

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 03:20 AM

Well, now that Microsoft have removed their chatrooms, the morons have to go somewhere....

Just to make it clear, I wasn't there during the original Monday evening diatribe, but I was there the following evening, so none of it was aimed at me... However, I was offended by the comments aimed directly at another person, for what, as far as I could see, no reason at all. No-one, no matter how silly or different they may be to you, deserves that kind of vitriolic comment from someone who, to all intents and purposes, is a total stranger. Even if it was someone known to us, there is no call for behaviour like that on a public forum. If you want to slag someone off, do it in private.

LTS

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 12:45 PM

Maybe it was done just to target one person.
Giok [paranoid moi?]

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:19 PM

I see. Guess they didnt know about the IGNORE button either.

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:13 PM

It's like the difference in performing in a live venue and cutting a record - in one case, instant feedback.

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:52 PM

Ok, but it still seems an odd thing to do. Why join somewhere just to be abusive, when they could have done the same thing on the main forum without joining. If they wanted to shock why choose the least visible place?
Oh, ignore me I'm trying to get inside the head of someone I don't want to be in the head of.

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:45 PM

GUEST,

I think some people do because they have limited access to e-mail and/or e-mail times with their service providers are expensive. I am guessing at that.

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Cllr
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:43 PM

There's an ignore button!!! uh oh that explains why it gets so quiet I mean er so I ve heard errr **shuffles off quitly**Cllr

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:35 PM

OK dumb question, but why would someone just join up to go into a chat room and not the main forum?

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:30 PM

I was in the room when this person was there. I did not know about the ignore button.

The person was extremeley offensive and threatening, if you had met that kind of person in a bar it would have been quite a scary experience.

It was right to ban him.

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 02:38 PM

Yep I'm with you there Teresa, if the clones say they received several requests to remove this offensive whatever, it works for me.
Giok

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Teresa
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 02:27 PM

C'mon, folk, ever gone to a bar and encountered obnoxious folk there? Hey, at least in the chat, you can press the ignore"" button. In the bar you have to rely on the bouncer, or toss 'em out yourself.

I'd say have the same rules for the threads as for the chat. If enough people pm Joe and clones, that person gets banned. But as a rule, use the "ignore' button.

T

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 02:27 PM

Nae bother ma wee flooer, fitever ye say's a' richt wi me.
Giok

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 02:22 PM

Just don't translate, Giok, and we're fine.

;-D

..xx..e

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 02:20 PM

Ho'is yer doos EP?
Giok

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 02:20 PM

Art,

What's kinky about THAT?

Subject: RE: Tech: Chat Room Banning
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 02:07 PM

Megan, I ADORE your accent!

If and when we next meet in chat, you can say whatever ye like, lassie, 'cause een if it were nasty, I'd never know!!!

..xx..e