Personal Attacks And Abusive Language Will Not Be Tolerated

[AB Editor]

"We understand that debates get heated, but personal attacks and abusive language will not be tolerated"

Can we all calm down a bit please?

I've been written to several times about how abrasive and aggressive this section has become.

Several have pointed out that the language in particular has become childish and brutish, with name calling and hyperbole being especially annoying.

So let's calm down a bit. Let's stop calling people "traitors to britain" and "friends of jihad" or similarly rude things.

If you can't make your opinion felt without resorting to these personal attacks, then you'll likely be met with suspension, or banning.

All the best,

Ed

[mikey4444]

No, I don't think it is Gromit...lets all make the effort !

[retrocop]

Naomi @1858
That was my attempt to assist earlier. No malice on my part but you can't cater for the ignorant .I wondered how small minded you need be just to remove an innocent interpretation.?

[naomi24]

I understood what Keyplus said, but that aside, ‘Rules’ are fine unless the ‘rules’ applied are nowhere to be found amongst ‘the rules’ – and that’s something that happens frequently. Zapping posts for interpreting incomprehensible language or for laughing at someone else’s joke are just two examples. Much very clearly depends upon the identity of the poster rather than what’s said. Some are very clearly free to insult quite outrageously with impunity - and it shows. Inconsistent and quite bewildering.

[bednobs]

retrocop, i think your post is probably exactly the kind of thing Ed would like us to avoid (using insults such s "ignorant" and "small minded")

[Peter Pedant]

Blimey here is a lot of squawking in the playground
we know that football assoc rules are inconsistently applied - scratching spitting and gouging sometimes allowed or ignored

but here we have post after post of people complaining that their hair pulling was singled out and someone else's wasnt

both parties protesting at the time - 'miss I didernt!'

// Much very clearly depends upon the identity of the poster rather than what’s said.// is the usual AB nonsequitur. there is nothing in the preceding words that allows one to draw such a conclusion

'very much clearly seems random' would be a better conclusion

and it's sunday, lets try to play sweetly and quietly on the Lords Day !

[naomi24]

Gromit, I’m not sure how you know this thread was created ‘on behalf of the owners’, but it’s absolutely right to ask people to moderate their language – only numbskulls enjoy posting or reading abuse. However, if the rules are to be implemented more rigidly, they should be implemented equally and across the ‘board’ so to speak, and no one should be given free rein to make rules up as they go along. It’s been said before, but intelligent posters have abandoned this site in droves in recent years – and the sole reason for their departure is random and inconsistent moderation. They simply felt that their posts were at the mercy of people who either don’t understand the content or do not possess an impartial eye, and hence in constructing those posts they were wasting both time and effort. Very sad - in my opinion.

[jno]

[i]intelligent posters have abandoned this site in droves in recent years – and the sole reason for their departure is random and inconsistent moderation[i]

just how many do you know who have done this, and for this sole reason? How many is a drove?

[retrocop]

bednobs
Those terms were not directed at any individual because the 'individual hides behind anonymity and thus avoids giving reasons for their bizarre and selective censorship. How would you describe that selective removal ??

[naomi24]

Jno, several. I’ll pass over your question relating to droves. Pedantry like that is precisely the sort of thing that creates unnecessary conflict.

[Peter Pedant]

// "intelligent posters have abandoned this site in droves in recent years – and the sole reason for their departure is random and inconsistent moderation"//

can we please stick to verifiable facts ? please

1) show me an intelligent poster
2) show me an intelligent poster who has 'abandoned' the site
3) show one one who has done it because of unfair moderation

talk about: 'I say it and so it must be true...'

[as for moderation it has to be selective or else ALL the posts go down the tube or none of them]

[Svejk]

It might have been a genuine question, Naomi. I don't think English is jno's first language.

[Svejk]

Peter, Naomi's not the first person to question the moderation on this site. She should be applauded for putting her head above the parapet, imo.
You are a case in point. You get away with murder.

[ToraToraTora]

pp, why are you creeping around other peoples gardens at night?

[naomi24]

Peter Pedant, see the final sentence of my post at 10.16.

[Peter Pedant]

thx Ni - a wise word to the blind ....
you have spoken.

[anneasquith]

Totally off topic. I'm sorry. But I think we should remember PP has some ongoing health issues. ( sorry Peter for speaking on your behalf ).

[naomi24]

Peter Pedant, your post at 10.29. Misplaced sarcasm also creates unnecessary conflict.

[jno]

I dont speak English at all, sveyk, but my dictionary thinks a drove is a flock of animals being driven as a body. It doesn't think this is the same as several.

But maybe querying other posters' use of florid but meaningless language creates conflict? How horrid.

[jno]

ah, it seems any criticism of naomi's posts creates unnecessary conflict.

Okaaaay.

[Prudie]

It really irritates me when the mods and those who follow them persistently deny that posters have left because of moderation. Do you think we are all blind? At least say this is how we want it run - absolutely acceptable - but don't deny it hasn't happened.