PDA

View Full Version : Obnoxious Pests



harry
05-10-2006, 03:42 PM
I clicked the "BAD POST" button on two posts from Bill Gletsos. Both were purely attacks on me for my opinions with no reference or evidence to back them up . I do not want him doing it and I will continue to leave him well alone as well. I have seen him hunting down other posters . I dont want him doing it to me .

On the "BAD POST" page their is this statement . "This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts." as far is I understand the word harassment it means ...

1. To irritate or torment persistently.
2. To wear out; exhaust.
3. To impede and exhaust by repeated attacks.

This is exactly what Bill Gletsos does to people and now he has started on me . I want it stopped.

I have been sent an auto message saying "Please do not make post reports unless the user you are reporting has breached the forum rules. The forum rules can be found here:"

I went there and none of the four words "problematic, harassment, fight(ing), rude" were anywhere in the forum rules .How come the there is a "BAD POST" button and the page says it is "ONLY to be used to report problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts." but those posts are not against the forum rules . I DONT GET IT!!!! What is the point in having a set of forum rules that allow "problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts." even when those kinds of posts are classed as a "BAD POST" and have a special button just to report them . I DONT GET IT!!!!!!!!!

Where do I go and what do I do to get some action so that Bill Gletsos can be stopped from harassing me or anyone else?

antichrist
05-10-2006, 03:45 PM
You and Starter may be able to get him classified as a cyber terrorist

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2006, 04:21 PM
On the "BAD POST" page their is this statement . "This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts." as far is I understand the word harassment it means ...

That BAD POST instruction is an automatic feature of the board software. It is overridden by the board rules. Please only report stuff that is in breach of the board rules.

We will deal with very obvious harassment cases (and there have been some) but where posters claim "harassment" during debates we will ignore it unless they present a convincing statement from a qualified legal authority to the effect that illegal harassment is happening.


I have been sent an auto message saying "Please do not make post reports unless the user you are reporting has breached the forum rules. The forum rules can be found here:"

Not an auto message - I wrote it.

harry
05-10-2006, 04:54 PM
unless they present a convincing statement from a qualified legal authority

You must be on leadacetate pills . the forum rules say "No legal threats (including threatening to "seek legal advice") may be made anywhere, including outside the site, against either the site or another poster on account of material posted here without first contacting the moderators and asking that the offending material be removed. Such a request may state that material is defamatory but may not include any reference to the possibility of legal action."

So i have to pay for legal advice that say I have a case then i get band for it .

You guys cannot be for real :lol:

Phil Bourke
05-10-2006, 07:19 PM
We will deal with very obvious harassment cases (and there have been some) but where posters claim "harassment" during debates we will ignore it unless they present a convincing statement from a qualified legal authority to the effect that illegal harassment is happening.
Kevin,
It may be time to rethink this attitude on harrasment. It has been my experience to see claims of harrasment within the workplace treated very seriously. It has even come to the point where once harrasment has been claimed, it is up to the accused to prove that they weren't harrassing the claimant, which can be very difficult because harrasment is usually judged from how the words/actions made the receiver feel. In the current workplace climate, a "Don't be stupid." comment, can be classed as harassment if it is repeated often enough.
Plus, why the need to present argument from qualified legal authorities? Surely it would be better to adopt a standard policy that may or may not have been prepared by legal authorities to govern this situation. One of those ounce of prevention issues. I think Nimzowitsch called it prophylaxis :)

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2006, 10:34 PM
Although we've banned the troll who started this thread for pretending to be a junior when he/she isn't, I do want to comment on this post.


Kevin,
It may be time to rethink this attitude on harrasment. It has been my experience to see claims of harrasment within the workplace treated very seriously. It has even come to the point where once harrasment has been claimed, it is up to the accused to prove that they weren't harrassing the claimant, which can be very difficult because harrasment is usually judged from how the words/actions made the receiver feel. In the current workplace climate, a "Don't be stupid." comment, can be classed as harassment if it is repeated often enough.

I assume what you are saying is that where something that looks like harassment is considered proven to have occurred, the onus is on the defendent to prove it was not harassment but was harmless. That's fair enough. (I doubt a guilty-til-proven-innocent approach would apply if the issue of whether the claimed incident had occurred at all was unresolved.)

I have no problem with that but online situations that are described as "harassment" by those claiming it are frequently very complex. Often posters claiming to have been "harassed" were actually guilty of initiating the scrap in the first place (using tactics that were at least as "harassing" if not more so, and furthermore less provoked) and are sooking because they lost the argument and the person who they picked it with is now pointing out their failings on other threads as well.

None of us here has the legal or relevant practical expertise to judge whether there is a prima facie case of harassment in such cases, and it's quite obvious that at least some of the "harassment" claims are total beatups, so unless we see something that we think is clearly unacceptable (eg blatant trolling of new posters), we will only act where we are supplied with a convincing case that illegal harassment is occuring.

Otherwise any poster could silence any other poster from criticising their posts at all by starting a bogus beatup about harassment. An example is my current flamewars with firegoat in which firegoat persistently writes posts abusing me, then tells me not to communicate with him and describes my posts as "stalking". Clearly firegoat should not have the right to criticise me without me having the right to respond to his rubbish.


Plus, why the need to present argument from qualified legal authorities? Surely it would be better to adopt a standard policy that may or may not have been prepared by legal authorities to govern this situation.

If you are aware of such a policy that is applicable to an online situation and isn't hopelessly ambiguous let us know and we'll consider it.

However any policy that targets a person responding to provocation but not a person giving provocation of an equal degree will not be taken seriously.

firegoat7
06-10-2006, 02:28 PM
Otherwise any poster could silence any other poster from criticising their posts at all by starting a bogus beatup about harassment. An example is my current flamewars with firegoat in which firegoat persistently writes posts abusing me, then tells me not to communicate with him and describes my posts as "stalking". Clearly firegoat should not have the right to criticise me without me having the right to respond to his rubbish.





Get out the violins you damn victim. :hand:

Your view on this is just wrong. People have the right to ask people to not interact with them in a public space. They do it all the time if you could be bothered to notice. Of course it requires some common sense, which clearly you do not seem to have.:hand:

cheers fg7

Kevin Bonham
06-10-2006, 03:08 PM
Get out the violins you damn victim. :hand:

Your view on this is just wrong. People have the right to ask people to not interact with them in a public space. They do it all the time if you could be bothered to notice.

The problem is that you seem to expect that you can ask me to not reply to your posts while at the same time continuing to publicly criticise me or groups I am part of (so actually you're the "victim" here since you want to dish it out but not take it). And that is not something people do all the time.

Phil Bourke
06-10-2006, 07:03 PM
However any policy that targets a person responding to provocation but not a person giving provocation of an equal degree will not be taken seriously.
This I cannot argue with, or never would, as I believe that you sow what you reap :)
My concern was for your apparent dismissal of harassment as an issue entirely. Something tells me that this is not the case, but issues may be confused in this thread, as it was polluted by a troll.
I will endeavour to seek out some info on harrassment regarding chat forums, and will gladly pass on anything I find of interest.

Kevin Bonham
06-10-2006, 07:06 PM
My concern was for your apparent dismissal of harassment as an issue entirely. Something tells me that this is not the case, but issues may be confused in this thread, as it was polluted by a troll.

We're not dismissing it entirely but I do think there are a lot of trumped-up and vexatious claims of it online. We have taken action in some clearcut cases in the past.


I will endeavour to seek out some info on harrassment regarding chat forums, and will gladly pass on anything I find of interest.

Thanks. I know there have been some court cases involving severe online harassment but those I know of have had a major defamation component as well.

firegoat7
07-10-2006, 10:25 AM
The problem is that you seem to expect that you can ask me to not reply to your posts while at the same time continuing to publicly criticise me or groups I am part of (so actually you're the "victim" here since you want to dish it out but not take it).

Actually, 'The problem' is that you refuse to acknowledge 'the problem'. I most certainly am allowed to ask you not to post in response to any of my points. Your refusal to accept that as a genuine position reflects on you not me.Just like in real life I can walk in the street without having to talk to you, so can i post on a BB without interacting with you.

The only criticism you get is what you provoke. If you did not provoke it you would not get it. Since you have never asked me not to respond to your posts, one can only conclude that it does not bother you, therefore it is no use complaining about it.

I on the other hand have requested that you do not respond to my posts. Will you agree? Not bloody likely, Why? Because you are troll. So go away troll, u r not required reading.:hand:

cheers Fg7

P.S
And that is not something people do all the time. Have a look at real life. Open your doors and get out of the house. Look around you and watch how people interact with each other. They can still share public space without interacting with each other directly, they do it all the time.:hand:

arosar
07-10-2006, 11:40 AM
Just like in real life I can walk in the street without having to talk to you, so can i post on a BB without interacting with you.

Now mate, surely a social scientist like you realise that the spatial context of "the street" is nowhere near akin to the confines of an online bulletin board - this bulletin board, especially.

AR

Kevin Bonham
07-10-2006, 12:13 PM
Actually, 'The problem' is that you refuse to acknowledge 'the problem'. I most certainly am allowed to ask you not to post in response to any of my points. Your refusal to accept that as a genuine position reflects on you not me.Just like in real life I can walk in the street without having to talk to you, so can i post on a BB without interacting with you.

I'm not accepting it as a genuine position until you make an offer of genuine non-engagement rather than this silly twaddle about just not replying to each others' posts. If you want me to not engage with you then you must agree to not engage with me. This means zero public comment about me including by implication. You have not made any such offer so I don't believe you are sincere. While you continue to make posts criticising me or bodies I am involved with your claims to be not interested in engagement are clearly rubbish.

If you agree not to reply to my posts, not to comment about me in any fashion, and not to comment about any body I am part of (or indeed about anything to do with Tasmanian chess) then we may make progress here. But I'm guessing you won't, because you want to have your cake and eat it too. I won't allow that, so unless you want to make a more reasonable offer, you can put up with me replying or else leave.


The only criticism you get is what you provoke. If you did not provoke it you would not get it.

This basically means that if I stand up for innocent people or true statements that you have criticised then you consider your vitriol, trolling and silliness justified. Bzzt, wrong. :hand:


P.S Have a look at real life. Open your doors and get out of the house. Look around you and watch how people interact with each other. They can still share public space without interacting with each other directly, they do it all the time.

But not while continuing to criticise and bait the other person. You are the one who needs to reexamine social reality; I get the impression the only version you spend much time in is a fabricated one inside your own dreamy head. :hand:

Basil
07-10-2006, 12:16 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: