A bit of an Amendment...

[OmegaMan]

I've noticed a real increase in the amount of comments I am seeing that specifically wish death upon others.

Particularly in some of the debate threads, where people are telling other members to kill themselves, saying they wish certain people got killed, etc.

I think these types of opinions should NOT be expressed publicly. This type of behavior only desensitizes us all to the notion of killing.

I think this type of speech should be SPECIFICALLY outlined in the Forum Rules as completely unnacceptable, and I think that another infraction category should be added for this behavior (I dunno, 'Murderous Discourse', or even just 'Talking About Death in an Innappropriate Manner").

Right now the only infraction category that even remotely fits is Cyber Bullying, but it isn't always necessarily that. For instance, someone has said that they wish the president was shot. This isn't bullying anyone, but it is innappropriate, and I think those types of opinions should be kept yourself. Freedom of speech on this forum SHOULD have a limit.

[Mac]

You have a pretty good point there. Wishing death upon a person is somewhat primitive and quite violent. You may disagree with a person, but death? That's a bit extreme.

I'm gonna back you up on this one, Vinnie. You've made an excellent point.

[OmegaMan]

Well thanks.

The sad thing is, we really shouldn't have to spell this one out, it should be obvious. I guess that's not the case though.

[Bango]

I know, I have noticed it too. Although it only seems to be one or two users really doing it. But there may be more, I haven't really been active in the debates lately.

[Luke]

Absolutely, it shouldn't be said...it's not needed to be said in any thread. It's a harsh personal attack, people should be able to debate without having to be have suicidal suggestions thrown at them. I've already dealt with an issue like this. This sort of thing will probably turn a debate into a fight and other Hutters don't need to see that sort of behaviour.

[Rosie]

I don't know how much good it will do to put it as an amendment to the rules. Most people don't actually read the rules when they register, they just let the countdown thing time out and hit continue. I know this is awful, but I've never read the whole rules page. Maybe we should address it in some other way.

[Murdoch]

Wishing death upon a politician because of them starting a war and wishing death upon another forum member directly is completely different.

With the debate thread you just reacted emotionally to it because you have a different opinion of the American government. However some people see the American Government as terrorist, and this person who just said about Americans should just learn to take a bullet cause they shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place is fine.

But on this forum if you wish for someone else on the forum to die directly, then that is wrong. But when that one person wished for US forces to take a bullet and supertaunt is a part of the Army and they knew that, that is not directly and not a problem.

I believe we already have rules set in place for all this.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Rosie
I don't know how much good it will do to put it as an amendment to the rules. Most people don't actually read the rules when they register, they just let the countdown thing time out and hit continue. I know this is awful, but I've never read the whole rules page. Maybe we should address it in some other way.

Hmm, I agree, a lot of people don't read the rules, I think that's why some people on the forum break them, because they haven't read the rules so they don't know.

However, if we do put it in the rules, we can point it out to users that do break the rules or if the user asks "where is it in the rules?" we can point that out to them, but that's one reason why we could have it. But they should already know not to do it, anyway.

If we find people that continously break the rules we could force them to read them.

[Rosie]

Hmm, I agree, a lot of people don't read the rules, I think that's why some people on the forum break them, because they haven't read the rules so they don't know.

However, if we do put it in the rules, we can point it out to users that do break the rules or if the user asks "where is it in the rules?" we can point that out to them, but that's one reason why we could have it. But they should already know not to do it, anyway.

If we find people that continously break the rules we could force them to read them.
There's no way to force them to read them. I know it should be in the rules just so we can tell them if they question us, but really, how could we actually force someone to read them?

[Luke]

There's no way to force them to read them. I know it should be in the rules just so we can tell them if they question us, but really, how could we actually force someone to read them?

Oh, what I meant was doing that through their profile, like the button "force this user read the forum rules again" or something, that's what I meant.

But then again, you don't know if they'll really read them or not. Lol

[OmegaMan]

I realize many users don't read the rules, but that's not an excuse for not following them. Mainly I think the infraction category is an important step.


With the debate thread you just reacted emotionally to it
Murd, this is NOT the case. ANYONE would think it innappropriate to wish death to ANYONE on a kid friendly forum. That kind of discussion is not needed.

Why is it that anytime I make a suggestion, or give an infraction, it gets shot down because I'm apparently "emotionally involved"? I'm not emotionally involved. If someone said that they thought Bill Clinton should be assassinated I would be reacting the same way.

Have you ever thought that maybe the reason why you are defending this behavior is because YOU are emotionally involved?


supertaunt is a part of the Army and they knew that, that is not directly and not a problem.
Clearly you did not read the specific comments. WildPoppy said "Try not to avoid any bullets" to supertaunt, and that he'll "die on the first day". Those are DIRECT and SPECIFIC comments.

[Murdoch]

I've talked with BA about this. There is nothing wrong with being a harsh in the sense of politics, and thats all that one person did. You were involved and obviously took offense just like how people with Ann Coulter and Stephen Colbert would.

BA and I see no reason to react nor to have an 'amendment' to the rules.

[OmegaMan]

Fine then. I won't force the issue. But I -DO- think that kind of behavior is innappropriate when it is on a personal level, and as a moderator, I will deal with it as such.

[Murdoch]

Do not deal with it... that's all I will say.

[OmegaMan]

But I -DO- think that kind of behavior is innappropriate when it is on a personal level
I haven't said anything that has contradicted what you have said.

[Murdoch]

The disussion is closed.