Ship of Fools: Wishing harm on a shipmate

Thread: Wishing harm on a shipmate Board: The Styx / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=003445

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I thought this was completely not allowed, even in Hell:

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think most of the voters for trumpy would enjoy crucifying Jesus, along with any Mexicans or Muslims and off-white people.

Which makes you a right fucking moron, on par with the driver of a particular silver Dodge...

Suffer long and die screaming asshole.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Link to post

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

And this post, given the context and post mt references, isn't exactly flowers and candy.

And I will remind the Admins of my defence of deano, another poster for whom I have no affection, when he uttered a threat. The context in that one mitigated the words. Not so much here.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

IMHO no context could mitigate those words (in the current instance). He's continuing in much the same vein, wishing death on yet another shipmate.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Seems to be a fairly standard FOAD*-style insult to me, albeit slightly more extremely worded. I've used such insults in Hell in the past, and I'm fairly sure you have as well.

*= "Fuck Off And Die".

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Seems to be a fairly standard FOAD*-style insult to me, albeit slightly more extremely worded. I've used such insults in Hell in the past, and I'm fairly sure you have as well.

*= "Fuck Off And Die".

And there you have it. The only way in which it is "fairly standard" is that it is completely run-of-the mill for romanlion. You and I might post in this vein but not so incessantly.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Seems to be a fairly standard FOAD*-style insult to me, albeit slightly more extremely worded. I've used such insults in Hell in the past, and I'm fairly sure you have as well.

*= "Fuck Off And Die".

And it is hate speech which is unacceptable in most contexts. Any sort of legitimate leadership should ban it because it is destructive, harm-causing, violent, verbal behaviour.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

In most contexts. It is acceptable in Hell.

If the admins banned all

quote:
destructive, harm-causing, violent, verbal behaviour

romanlion wouldn't even be at the front of the queue.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Which would upset him to no end.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

I suppose the question for Christians, if any, would be whether they are happy to use these emphatic turns of phrase while conscious of the presence of the Holy Spirit. Who knows? You tell me.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Well said! [Overused]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

So other than lawsuit stuff, do we have any "no further than this" lines in Hell? I could swear this has been discussed before and things like Romanlion posted last night were over the line. Granted my memory isn't what it used to be, but that's generally for remembering new stuff, not retaining old stuff.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

As the target of the comment, I didn't take it seriously. It appeared unhinged. Additionally, I think wishing someone dead is quite different that threatening them. A real tangible threat is something for police, not lawsuits in my view, if the threat is real and if not immanent, something for the ship admins to determine. I'd want to have them adjudicate before me or anyone else. Having handled things like this before.

I've been mulling if I went over some line in provoking the "adverse comment". Probably I have, but I felt okay with it because of the nature of the issue. But I'm okay with taking any heat on my posting on it and anything else.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think this post is probably acceptable in hell, but pretty gratuitously unpleasant. Continued posting of this nature would, in my view, warrant an Admin warning at least. Especially if this was constant between particular shipmates.

I think there is a difference between "FOAD" and "I am going to search you out, find your house and kill you". The latter would be a definate threat, IMO. The former is just standard angry hell discourse - there was a period where redesigning shipmates anatomy using farming tools was common - which seems in the same vein.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So other than lawsuit stuff, do we have any "no further than this" lines in Hell? I could swear this has been discussed before and things like Romanlion posted last night were over the line. Granted my memory isn't what it used to be, but that's generally for remembering new stuff, not retaining old stuff.

I don't remember the exact details, but deano made a direct threat to me and it was flagged. His defence was that, in the context of something I'd written, that it was a joke. Much as I dislike deano, I agreed. Not funny nor in fun, but still not a serious threat.
romanlion implied he wished I would be hit by a car. Not a direct threat, as he did not say he would be driving the car and he bravely did not get specific.
Whether that is in the rules, I do not know.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

Frankly, I find it more troubling that, AFAICS, posts like these seem to constitute almost the entirety of romanlion's ouevre (or however it's spelled -- "output") on this site. Maybe I just haven't come across his more substantive contributions. All I see are longish periods of silence interspersed by his sweeping in to some thread to make 3 or 4 nasty, occasionally obscure (at least to me, but hey), cracks, and then swooping out again, leaving subsequent requests for clarification or response unanswered. It does make me wonder why he bothers.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Frankly, I find it more troubling that, AFAICS, posts like these seem to constitute almost the entirety of romanlion's ouevre

I think the almost is why he is still here.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Historically, racism and legal threats and illegal stuff were out even in Hell, so yes there certainly used to be limits. Suggestions of what people could do with rusty farm implements etc. were OK though.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

It's also possible to read the asshole in Romanlion's original post as being the driver of the Dodge rather than or as well as No Prophet etc. The ambiguity's certainly there.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Historically, racism and legal threats and illegal stuff were out even in Hell, so yes there certainly used to be limits. Suggestions of what people could do with rusty farm implements etc. were OK though.

The thing about the old rusty farm implement insults was the comical absurdity, which made it clear that they weren't terribly serious. There is no comical absurdity to "Suffer long and die screaming asshole."

Gee D, I think you have to really work to find ambiguity there. There is nothing in the words to indicate that the "you" (the person addressed) has shifted. If I were talking to Tom and I said, "You're an idiot just like that guy on TV. I hope your wife leaves you for an insurance claims adjuster" there would be no reason whatever to think the second sentence -- the curse -- was meant for the guy on TV rather than Tom.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Frankly, I find it more troubling that, AFAICS, posts like these seem to constitute almost the entirety of romanlion's ouevre (or however it's spelled -- "output") on this site. Maybe I just haven't come across his more substantive contributions. All I see are longish periods of silence interspersed by his sweeping in to some thread to make 3 or 4 nasty, occasionally obscure (at least to me, but hey), cracks, and then swooping out again, leaving subsequent requests for clarification or response unanswered. It does make me wonder why he bothers.

He bothers because he gets off on the reactions he gets. As long as he thinks he'll get a rise out of someone, he'll bother.

On a message board, the only way to deal with people like him, short of banning, is to ignore him, to deny him the attention and reaction he craves.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Historically, racism and legal threats and illegal stuff were out even in Hell, so yes there certainly used to be limits. Suggestions of what people could do with rusty farm implements etc. were OK though.

I am not sure if the ship has reviewed its policies on this since UK law most recently changed though.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Police link

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

Gee D, I think you have to really work to find ambiguity there. There is nothing in the words to indicate that the "you" (the person addressed) has shifted. If I were talking to Tom and I said, "You're an idiot just like that guy on TV. I hope your wife leaves you for an insurance claims adjuster" there would be no reason whatever to think the second sentence -- the curse -- was meant for the guy on TV rather than Tom.

I don't think you have to work really hard - there was a paragraph break in between. But I was feeling in a kindly mood to the world generally this morning and that may influenced me.

[ 16. August 2017, 07:08: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

TBF, we have had a number of shipmates who have known exactly how far they can push the limits, and survive for a long time past when they probably should*. In truth, this keeps the boards lively (unrestful), but is also why they are a difficult place to be sometimes (I took a break for several months after I realised I couldn't be arsed to respond to one again .

*IMHO. Teflon-coated shipmates are a PITFA.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Police link

I do wonder if an ambiguous phrase written on a bulletin board is quite the same as being tweeted at or engaged in some way on other social media.

It seems unlikely to me that the police are really interested in someone saying that someone else can [generally] piss off and die on a bulletin board. Which is different to the kinds of violent harassment people are subjected to on twitter and elsewhere.

I am not a lawyer or police.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I'm not sure how harrasment and malicious communication work, legally, given the anonymity of Ship names. Can you harrass an avatar?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure how harrasment and malicious communication work, legally, given the anonymity of Ship names. Can you harrass an avatar?

You sound like IngoB. Perhaps you, like he, don't realize that avatars don't post here, people do?

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure how harrasment and malicious communication work, legally, given the anonymity of Ship names. Can you harrass an avatar?
You sound like IngoB. Perhaps you, like he, don't realize that avatars don't post here, people do?

But not all the people are as readily identifiable as others. I could choose to harass the pseudonymous person presented here whose real identity I haven't the foggiest about, but does that constitute as much of a threat to the person than if I knew their name and which church they might be found at on an average Sunday morning?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You sound like IngoB. Perhaps you, like he, don't realize that avatars don't post here, people do?

Yes. But there is a difference between something which is a personal threat of violence and something which is a war of words between two unidentified people.

If one was in a crowd at a sports game, it might get a bit rowdy and someone might shout that their team should kick some arse. Someone might shout that the team needs to crack some heads.

There are limits on what can be shouted from a crowd, of course, but I don't think people generally think that a shout from a crowd is a serious incitement to cause physical violence to an opponent.

On the other hand, if a player on one team used the same words to a player on the other team and the referee heard it then there might be consequences.

I think the difference is that the thing has to be personal for it to be threatening.

The point where the impersonal becomes personal is difficult to define on a bulletin board, but it seems to me that unless there is some very specific threat, doxxing*, etc it is hard to show that there is serious intent of violence by an anonymous person to someone else who is anonymous. Of course it gets more difficult when one of the participants is more open about their RL identity than the other.

* public release of personal details like home address

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure how harrasment and malicious communication work, legally, given the anonymity of Ship names. Can you harrass an avatar?
You sound like IngoB. Perhaps you, like he, don't realize that avatars don't post here, people do?

That made me smile. IngoB and I disagreed about 95% of everything. I couldn't channel him even if I tried.

My serious point was about the way the law applied on websites like ours, where anonymity is protected if folks want it to be. I don't know the answer in the UK, thought somebody else might.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

My point was that I don't know if the policies have been reviewed in the light of new stuff - not that such and such a post would constitute a breach.

It is certainly the case that using an alias is not a defence, whether the recipient can be identified is probably more salient.

But, if you put someone in fear they can be identified - that is an issue. Also, abuse can an impact through what is said - you're stupid, useless, pointless etc - if received repeatedly even if the person giving the abuse doesn't actually know your name.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure how harrasment and malicious communication work, legally, given the anonymity of Ship names. Can you harrass an avatar?
You sound like IngoB. Perhaps you, like he, don't realize that avatars don't post here, people do?
But not all the people are as readily identifiable as others. I could choose to harass the pseudonymous person presented here whose real identity I haven't the foggiest about, but does that constitute as much of a threat to the person than if I knew their name and which church they might be found at on an average Sunday morning?

But this is the Internet and this is 2017. Finding out who somebody is, isn't all that difficult. If you think your "anonymous" username is keeping you truly anonymous, you are kidding yourself. Somebody who really wanted to do you harm could find you easily enough.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Somebody who really wanted to do you harm could find you easily enough.

But this is not what was going on in Hell. romanlion posted a colorful version of FOAD which was well within the lines of what's allowed in Hell.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Somebody who really wanted to do you harm could find you easily enough.
But this is not what was going on in Hell. romanlion posted a colorful version of FOAD which was well within the lines of what's allowed in Hell.

And the conversation had wandered away from that and I was following the thread of the conversation.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Somebody who really wanted to do you harm could find you easily enough.
But this is not what was going on in Hell. romanlion posted a colorful version of FOAD which was well within the lines of what's allowed in Hell.
And the conversation had wandered away from that and I was following the thread of the conversation.

It's very difficult for us to state policy when the conversation moves away from a relatively simple question. So, on the question of FOAD posts, even when put colourfully, the policy is quite simple. These are unpleasant, may be taken as an indication of the maturity and level of imagination of the person who posts, but are not unacceptable in Hell.

If we're going to move from FOAD to actually threatening to cause harm to another Shipmate (either directly or inciting others to do so), that puts us in another situation entirely, one that the Admins will pay very close attention to.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[And it is hate speech which is unacceptable in most contexts.

No, it is not according to most definitions of hate speech, which involve expressing hatred towards a particular group on the basis of a characteristic such as race and religion.

Being nasty to someone over an opinion is not usually covered.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

There may or may not be a legal distinction between the targets of expressed hatred. I cannot see a clear moral distinction.

Indeed, to the very limited extent that Christian maxims apply here (not at all, perhaps), attack on an individual ("raca, thou fool") is specifically warned against.

But, your site, your rules.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I've never adminned, on this site or any other, but I'd imagine the workload would really be more enjoyable if you didn't have to put up with repeated calls of "umpire".

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I've never adminned, on this site or any other, but I'd imagine the workload would really be more enjoyable if you didn't have to put up with repeated calls of "umpire".

We don't mind. It makes us feel important.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

what about, "If you don't mind, Umpire"

Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Indeed, to the very limited extent that Christian maxims apply here (not at all, perhaps), attack on an individual ("raca, thou fool") is specifically warned against.

But, your site, your rules.

...but...ITTWACW.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

{tangent}

Hmmm...

a Chocolate Website?
a Cheese-stuffed Website?
a Catharian Website?
a Carillon Website?
a Crypto-zoology Website?

{deboarding tangent--watch your step}

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
what about, "If you don't mind, Umpire"

Or, "I do apologise for interrupting your afternoon nap, Umpire..."

[ 20. October 2017, 11:48: Message edited by: jacobsen ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0