Forum rules

Feedback board rules

Personal criticism

Forum policies discussion

Swearing & Racial Abuse

Pedophilia accusations against politicians

Rules for banning from member run and party boards

Pictures and avatars

what to do if the site is slow

Using the correct board

New boards

Guest posting

Deletions

Help! (basics for using the forum)

Links that work....

Site search function questions

Quoting entire posts

Free ozpolitic email addresses

Member home pages

Extended profiles

Wikis, blogs and forums

Webring

Colours, layout etc

Colour Templates

Contact: http://www.ozpolitic.com/contact.html

---

I have updated the poll page: http://www.ozpolitic.com/poll/

I have nearly finished adding feeds to the new news section: http://www.ozpolitic.com/news/news.php

---

Tips:

Are you a new member having trouble posting because of error messages? This is probably because you have included a link, image or URL in your post.

You can be notified by email and/or a popup window when you recieve a personal message via this forum.

The new board icons are great. I like the Green one. Watermelons have a thin skin of green but on the inside they are as red as you can get. Very apt.

If you are sending myself or one of the other moderators a complaint via personal message, please include both a link and a quote, preferably by using the quote button. If you do not do this, I will ignore your message.

Good stuff. Thanks FD  :)

Mr Hicks has just posted this for clarification:


Quote:

Accusations of pedophilia, racism etc and those of slanderous nature though are not tolerated.

The times they are a changin'.
FD may need to change things around here, with so many folks making such extreme claims.

Liability for the views of others – defamation in the digital age
A recent proceeding issued in New South Wales by a building company against a consumer opinion website is a timely reminder to website owners, operators and administrators of potential liability for publishing defamatory or misleading comments posted by third parties.


Much of what people contend on here goes way past opinion, in how they present it. Brave new world getting less free all the time.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 29^th, 2017 at 11:37am:

The times they are a changin'. FD may need to change things around here, with so many folks making such extreme claims. Liability for the views of others – defamation in the digital age A recent proceeding issued in New South Wales by a building company against a consumer opinion website is a timely reminder to website owners, operators and administrators of potential liability for publishing defamatory or misleading comments posted by third parties. Much of what people contend on here goes way past opinion, in how they present it. Brave new world getting less free all the time.

Yes, FD has been warned for a while that he's running the gauntlet. Much of what is said here is firmly actionable.

It's only a matter of time.

And mysteriously, the lefties keep getting banned for no reason at all.

I have never been banned or threatened with such as either Nom de Plume or Sappho. I suggest then, that there is more it, Mothra.

Nom de Plume wrote on Nov 29^th, 2017 at 3:04pm:

I have never been banned or threatened with such as either Nom de Plume or Sappho. I suggest then, that there is more it, Mothra.

I think pissing off certain people doesn't help, right? Do you challenge those people? In any of your socks?

Face it, the moderation here is done on a whim. There is no fairness, consitency or explanation give, most of the time.

The worst behaved people on here never get banned. Foul racism, Islamophobia, homophobia and sexism is actively encouraged. Those of us who speak out against it are trolled relentlessly, and banned.

For example, Black Orchid has been gloating about gettting Greggerypeccary banned after reporting him to VIc.

Can you see anything in Greg's last 25 posts that deserve a ban? He was trying to draw attention to the abuse of another member .. then ... chop.

Cue gloating.

That's how it works around here.

It's okay though, i think you're on the right side.

I have no socks.
I try to entice debate, rather than abuse.
I opt not to troll, but love to tease.

Maybe this why have not been banned.

I would argue that you have done substantial trolling since your arrival but it is neither here nor there.

Trolling is within the rules.

Racial vilification and hate speech are not.

mothra wrote on Nov 29^th, 2017 at 5:45pm:

I would argue that you have done substantial trolling since your arrival but it is neither here nor there. Trolling is within the rules. Racial vilification and hate speech are not.

To say that racial vilification and hate speech are not... not what? Not within the rules? Is it against the rules? Beyond the scope of the rules?

Nom de Plume wrote on Nov 29^th, 2017 at 6:19pm:

mothra wrote on Nov 29th, 2017 at 5:45pm: I would argue that you have done substantial trolling since your arrival but it is neither here nor there. Trolling is within the rules. Racial vilification and hate speech are not. To say that racial vilification and hate speech are not... not what? Not within the rules? Is it against the rules? Beyond the scope of the rules?

Discussion of racism and race related political issues is encouraged. However, politically correct language should be used when making criticism of racial policies or groups. Racism will be judged in a similar way to pornography – that is, is the criticism necessary to get a point of view across, or is it a gratuitous attack on a racial group? Note that race is treated differently from religion, which is a matter of choice and is open to the same criticism as political ideology.

When I see a suspected breech, I will report it with a valid rationale as to why, and without fear, favor or malice

I try to make the rules somewhat reflective of the law when it comes to slander, libel etc. There is a general principle that people who put themselves in the public eye need to expect more and broader criticism than those who do not. Politicians are at the top of the list. You can get away with just about anything in criticising them, partly because the law supports it, and partly because they just don't bother suing people. They are too clever to waste their money, and it is bad politically. Accusing them of pedophilia etc is probably stretching it, and we have a rule here that you cannot do this unless the accusation is in the mainstream media.

Likewise you can normally get away with broad accusations against religious leaders and celebrities. Probably not to the same extent as politicians, as the Rebel Wilson case demonstrates.

This site often tops google search results for a variety of topics, so we are not flying under the radar any more.

You have to be especially careful with businesses and product reviews, as these people have a motivation to sue. You need to be honest, fair, reasonable and motivated by the public interest rather than spite. For the most part they are reluctant to sue, even for an unfair and untrue criticism, because it brings them bad press, especially if they are a business people tend to dislike for political reasons (eg Maccas).

The rules on this are very grey and largely determined by what a judge considers reasonable or normal. Case law (eg Rebel Wilson, and the consumer opinion website example Mozz gave) are probably the best thing to go by.

Please report via PM anything you think puts me at risk of getting sued.

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2017 at 8:15am:

I try to make the rules somewhat reflective of the law when it comes to slander, libel etc. There is a general principle that people who put themselves in the public eye need to expect more and broader criticism than those who do not. Politicians are at the top of the list. You can get away with just about anything in criticising them, partly because the law supports it, and partly because they just don't bother suing people. They are too clever to waste their money, and it is bad politically. Accusing them of pedophilia etc is probably stretching it, and we have a rule here that you cannot do this unless the accusation is in the mainstream media. Likewise you can normally get away with broad accusations against religious leaders and celebrities. Probably not to the same extent as politicians, as the Rebel Wilson case demonstrates. This site often tops google search results for a variety of topics, so we are not flying under the radar any more. You have to be especially careful with businesses and product reviews, as these people have a motivation to sue. You need to be honest, fair, reasonable and motivated by the public interest rather than spite. For the most part they are reluctant to sue, even for an unfair and untrue criticism, because it brings them bad press, especially if they are a business people tend to dislike for political reasons (eg Maccas). The rules on this are very grey and largely determined by what a judge considers reasonable or normal. Case law (eg Rebel Wilson, and the consumer opinion website example Mozz gave) are probably the best thing to go by. Please report via PM anything you think puts me at risk of getting sued.

FD, you are prosecutable daily. As much as it may titlate you to have threads about how all Muslims are terrorists; squat down to pee; have an IQ of 85; rape their children; beat their wives, it is not the done thing ...

... and that Aboriginals are alcoholic dole bludgers who are genetically beneath us ...

And all of the other racist filth you allow on here and do not instruct your moderartors (who seem confused about thier rights and reponsibilities) or put forward any impartial moderators who will actually watch your back ...

... and while your refuse to protect members of your forum themselves ..


And you want us to watch your back? Are you serious?

You're up for the high jump old boy. If, as you say, we are coming up on google searches, you're screwed. The horse has bolted.

Pray. That's the best chance you've got.

Oh, and FYI? Having a poster called Dr Mengele, who posts as they do, leaves you just a little bit exposed ... just so you know.

mothra wrote on Nov 30^th, 2017 at 9:55am:

freediver wrote on Nov 30th, 2017 at 8:15am: I try to make the rules somewhat reflective of the law when it comes to slander, libel etc. There is a general principle that people who put themselves in the public eye need to expect more and broader criticism than those who do not. Politicians are at the top of the list. You can get away with just about anything in criticising them, partly because the law supports it, and partly because they just don't bother suing people. They are too clever to waste their money, and it is bad politically. Accusing them of pedophilia etc is probably stretching it, and we have a rule here that you cannot do this unless the accusation is in the mainstream media. Likewise you can normally get away with broad accusations against religious leaders and celebrities. Probably not to the same extent as politicians, as the Rebel Wilson case demonstrates. This site often tops google search results for a variety of topics, so we are not flying under the radar any more. You have to be especially careful with businesses and product reviews, as these people have a motivation to sue. You need to be honest, fair, reasonable and motivated by the public interest rather than spite. For the most part they are reluctant to sue, even for an unfair and untrue criticism, because it brings them bad press, especially if they are a business people tend to dislike for political reasons (eg Maccas). The rules on this are very grey and largely determined by what a judge considers reasonable or normal. Case law (eg Rebel Wilson, and the consumer opinion website example Mozz gave) are probably the best thing to go by. Please report via PM anything you think puts me at risk of getting sued. FD, you are prosecutable daily. As much as it may titlate you to have threads about how all Muslims are terrorists; squat down to pee; have an IQ of 85; rape their children; beat their wives, it is not the done thing ... ... and that Aboriginals are alcoholic dole bludgers who are genetically beneath us ... And all of the other racist filth you allow on here and do not instruct your moderartors (who seem confused about thier rights and reponsibilities) or put forward any impartial moderators who will actually watch your back ... ... and while your refuse to protect members of your forum themselves .. And you want us to watch your back? Are you serious? You're up for the high jump old boy. If, as you say, we are coming up on google searches, you're screwed. The horse has bolted. Pray. That's the best chance you've got.

Indeed. News Ltd was found guilty for publishing the racial vilification of Andrew Bolt.

2UE has been found liable for broadcasting the inflammatory comments of Alan Jones.

Let's face it, FD's never going to cop a subpoena, but he has actively supported the views of posters who personally vilified Yassmin Abdel-Magied, Gillian Triggs, and various other tabloid enemies. FD has studiously evaded the question of whether issuing death or rape threats constitutes freedom of speech, but he has actively drummed up hostility towards Yassmin for being a Muslim - and tinted.

Yes, FD sees himself as a victim of Yassmin's criticism of Australian racism. In return, he accepts death and rape threats, including an avalanche of menacing phone messages and social media posts, not to mention a tabloid storm. FD is able to block out all the reasons someone might say Australians are racist - such as calling to ban people based on their religion and their level of tintedness.

Not racist, according to FD, and all above board. I doubt he's going to get himself into hot water over it. It is, however, a dangerous social turn. If all Australians expressed such views, we'd have an extremely hostile, mean and elitist society. FD, of course, is advocating for all Australians to express such views, and he's using an electronic communications medium to do it.

He's not going to face a law suit over it, but on the face of it, FD has supported libel and racial vilification in a number of threads, not to mention the entire board.

Of course, some people will use empty or meaningless threats of legal action to achieve censorship.

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2017 at 1:08pm:

Of course, some people will use empty or meaningless threats of legal action to achieve censorship.

What about threats of rape and violence as a means to censor, FD?

Character assassination? Sexually explicit  abuse?

Quite alright?

Strict adherence to the Mothra Guidelines on Political Correctness, Toxic Masculinity, White Guilt, Obedience to Islam, inter alia, will ensure immunity from prosecution.
Or my name's not Linda Sarsour!

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2017 at 1:08pm:

Of course, some people will use empty or meaningless threats of legal action to achieve censorship.

True. And some will use empty or meaningless defences like "what a judge considers reasonable or normal".

What sound does a jellyfish make?

Nom de Plume wrote on Nov 29^th, 2017 at 3:04pm:

I have never been banned or threatened with such as either Nom de Plume or Sappho. I suggest then, that there is more to it, Mothra.

Of course there is.

In fact the violent behaviour of Leftwing protesters has been the subject of discussion only recently in the aftermath of the Milo talks.

mothra wrote on Nov 30^th, 2017 at 9:55am:

You're up for the high jump old boy. If, as you say, we are coming up on google searches, you're screwed. The horse has bolted. Pray. That's the best chance you've got.

Wow!

Mothra's broken loose. Gone feral on Freediver with a succession of bitch slapping that she threatens may be terminal.

Marla will be proud of you.

Here, borrow this, Mothra.


http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4556/27194077039_7907c71d51_b.jpg

link


Re: Swearing & Racial Abuse
Reply #1 - Feb 1st, 2014 at 2:24pm Quote
perceptions_now wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 10:49am:

"In particular, please watch your F & C's and do not try avoiding the swear checker program!

I will change those that I pick up and if that doesn't seem to be working, then I will delete the post and if that still doesn't work, then you may get an enforced rest.

Cheers!"

I thought FD had since then decided to assume that the membership here is composed only of adults and that a moderate amount of the use of the 'f' word would be tolerated as it is any where else among a gathering of adults. For emphasis I sometimes find the word is phcuking indispensable.

"Do not post personal criticism of other members.
Do not respond to personal criticism of yourself or other members.
This is the biggest problem on OzPolitic. Too many members are easily baited into off-topic personal exchanges.
If you participate in any kind of flame war you will be suspended, regardless of who started it or who you think ‘deserved it’."


I don't personally give a rat's arse about personal criticism, per se - do your best. But what I do find intolerable is the constant baiting and harassment with the use of gibberish and silly one-liners that follows so many of my posts as a means of deflecting attention to the pest himself as having arrived with the intention of shutting me down with a series of similar smartarse one-liners.

..

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2017 at 1:08pm:

Of course, some people will use empty or meaningless threats of legal action to achieve censorship.

Correct.

Censorship being the ultimate goal, of course, as a precursor to setting up a State dictatorship.



"News Ltd was found guilty for publishing the racial vilification of Andrew Bolt".

Fake news.

He was prosecuted for giving false information that had nothing to do with race or colour.

Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 11^th, 2017 at 10:28am:

link Re: Swearing & Racial Abuse Reply #1 - Feb 1st, 2014 at 2:24pm Quote perceptions_now wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 10:49am: "In particular, please watch your F & C's and do not try avoiding the swear checker program! I will change those that I pick up and if that doesn't seem to be working, then I will delete the post and if that still doesn't work, then you may get an enforced rest. Cheers!" I thought FD had since then decided to assume that the membership here is composed only of adults and that a moderate amount of the use of the 'f' word would be tolerated as it is any where else among a gathering of adults. For emphasis I sometimes find the word is phcuking indispensable. "Do not post personal criticism of other members. Do not respond to personal criticism of yourself or other members. This is the biggest problem on OzPolitic. Too many members are easily baited into off-topic personal exchanges. If you participate in any kind of flame war you will be suspended, regardless of who started it or who you think ‘deserved it’." I don't personally give a rat's arse about personal criticism, per se - do your best. But what I do find intolerable is the constant baiting and harassment with the use of gibberish and silly one-liners that follows so many of my posts as a means of deflecting attention to the pest himself as having arrived with the intention of shutting me down with a series of similar smartarse one-liners.

It only works if people respond to it.

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 30^th, 2017 at 2:11pm:

Strict adherence to the Mothra Guidelines on Political Correctness, Toxic Masculinity, White Guilt, Obedience to Islam, inter alia, will ensure immunity from prosecution. Or my name's not Linda Sarsour!

;D ;D ;D

'You're Better than All the Rest', bogey!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjYYordQ55c

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2017 at 12:03pm:

It only works if people respond to it.

Notice to moderators:- Persistent thread-trashers are to be tolerated, and their victims are to be deemed the guilty parties.

Why not just scrap all the rules and tell us to in future ignore any posts that might include offensive material?

Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 11^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 11th, 2017 at 12:03pm: It only works if people respond to it. Notice to moderators:- Persistent thread-trashers are to be tolerated, and their victims are to be deemed the guilty parties. Why not just scrap all the rules and tell us to in future ignore any posts that might include offensive material?

The rules already state that you are not to respond to offensive posts.

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2017 at 12:29pm:

The rules already state that you are not to respond to offensive posts.

Correct.

But there is no rule that says someone can't repeatedly stalk you for the purpose of inserting one- or two-line posts designed to irritate, deflect, harass, and upset the flow of the topic being discussed.

Karnal does this without insult or abuse, but his endless series of posts that step on my posts are every bit as detrimental to the smooth and fair running of this forum board.

You are in ignorance of this because you yourself are not the target of this persistent harassment that wants to shut me down.

In the vast majority of cases I do not respond to his snippets of gibberish, but he well knows that others will take up his invitation to help deflect and derail these threads until it's rendered a train-wreck in very short time.

Persistent hecklers most often do not use foul language, but they are nevertheless people with a mission to disrupt what they don't like to hear, until the Speaker has to call Security, or the poster simply gives up because the moderators or the Board Owner finds these teasing antics amusing. 

I think Karnal hassles me a lot more than he does you. Or at least, he used to. I just have more self control. It is your response that causes the thread to derail, and moderators are not here to pass value judgements on which conversations are worthy.

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2017 at 8:23pm:

I think Karnal hassles me a lot more than he does you. Or at least, he used to. I just have more self control.

Yes, but Herbie's frail, FD. He's from a superior race. He shouldn't have to put up with being offended all the time, it's just not fair.

Maybe you could set him up on his own board and let him ban whoever he wants. Something harmless - pets?

Herbie can use it to spread his porkies and delete anyone who might be a risk of suggesting an alternative view. You know, the way Pol Pot killed off everyone who wore glasses.

Someone has to protect Herb from the bullies, you know. We wouldn't want him returning to his superior country or anything.

Besides, it's gone to the dogs since he left. Britain was so much better in the war. Can you help Herbie to start another one?

It might cheer him up a bit.

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2017 at 8:23pm:

I think Karnal hassles me a lot more than he does you. Or at least, he used to. I just have more self control. It is your response that causes the thread to derail, and moderators are not here to pass value judgements on which conversations are worthy.

What a load of horse-sh*t.

You’ve made a laughing-stock of yourself with none other than Karnal himself who knows a lot better than you do the truth of what I’ve been saying.

I find Karnal is good value, his/her posts are  amusing and she keeps freediver on his toes.

;D ;D ;D

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 1:31pm:

I find Karnal is good value, his/her posts are  amusing and she keeps freediver on his toes. ;D ;D ;D

Considering FD’s reluctance to acknowledge the truth of what I’ve been saying, I think it might be more the case that Karnal has been keeping FD not on his toes but on his knees.

Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 2:02pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 14th, 2017 at 1:31pm: I find Karnal is good value, his/her posts are  amusing and she keeps freediver on his toes. ;D ;D ;D Considering FD’s reluctance to acknowledge the truth of what I’ve been saying, I think it might be more the case that Karnal has been keeping FD not on his toes but on his knees.

Alas, Herbie, that's where I like to keep you.

While you're down there, love...

Herb it's like you are getting trolled by a 6 year old and demanding that I make it stop.

Karnal has not much to say but a lot of spare time to fill so it's the forum equivalent of late night shouty ads, lots of repetitious sound bites, it's noise and energy demanding attention.

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 1:31pm:

I find Karnal is good value, his/her posts are  amusing and she keeps freediver on his toes. ;D ;D ;D

Like I said: were all trolls!

Alternatively: I also say there is no such thing as trolls!

:D

Secret Wars wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 12:46pm:

Karnal has not much to say but a lot of spare time to fill so it's the forum equivalent of late night shouty ads, lots of repetitious sound bites, it's noise and energy demanding attention.

Wow, so like a cold daddykins you’re going to give the cold shoulder and thus the label to mummykins?

:o

Who do you think you are broseph?

freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 12:19pm:

Herb it's like you are getting trolled by a 6 year old and demanding that I make it stop.

You’ve nailed it. Trolled by a 6 year old who uses ‘gibberish’ (your word) whenever he’s lost for a cogent answer but feels his ego mustn’t be seen to be floundering in silence.

I’m at a disadvantage here because you haven’t done your homework on this, and consequently you’re just firing from the hip with Sounds Bites that are based on ignorance and misguided assumption.

Karnal knows exactly how correct I am with what I’ve said, and only recently, in defence of himself after you had made a comment to him in one of your posts, he answered you - in reference to me - “ .. but he’s a Nazi and a racist”.

That’s how he justified himself for acting like a 6 year old with stepping on all my posts.

And that’s my last word on the matter.

freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 12:19pm:

Herb it's like you are getting trolled by a 6 year old and demanding that I make it stop.

Is it so difficult to ask a fractious kid to cease and desist with what he’s doing?

Are you saying you want me to do more research into you getting trolled by a 6 year old because I don't appreciate that you are getting trolled by a 6 year old?

Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 1:25pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 12:19pm: Herb it's like you are getting trolled by a 6 year old and demanding that I make it stop. You’ve nailed it. Trolled by a 6 year old who uses ‘gibberish’ (your word) whenever he’s lost for a cogent answer but feels his ego mustn’t be seen to be floundering in silence. I’m at a disadvantage here because you haven’t done your homework on this, and consequently you’re just firing from the hip with Sounds Bites that are based on ignorance and misguided assumption. Karnal knows exactly how correct I am with what I’ve said, and only recently, in defence of himself after you had made a comment to him in one of your posts, he answered you - in reference to me - “ .. but he’s a Nazi and a racist”. That’s how he justified himself for acting like a 6 year old with stepping on all my posts. And that’s my last word on the matter.

There you go, gang, that's Herbie's last word on the matter.

freediver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 8:26pm:

Are you saying you want me to do more research into you getting trolled by a 6 year old because I don't appreciate that you are getting trolled by a 6 year old?

Do prawns feel pain?

Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 1:28pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 12:19pm: Herb it's like you are getting trolled by a 6 year old and demanding that I make it stop. Is it so difficult to ask a fractious kid to cease and desist with what he’s doing?

That's definitely Herbie's last word on the matter.

what are your forum rules on members spamming none stop all through treads, taking them off topic and generally ruining them??

link please ...