Animal Abuse Posts

[Pippin]

But again - my point is that one should not assume these people who are being sent on vacation are posting the links with the purpose of being malicious or bratty. There are logical explanations - occam's razor if you wish - for the posts especially as it was a different people at different times.

 

Intent is irrelevant. Actions matter. People violated the TOS, after being warned not to, and were suspended. Actions have consequences, regardless of the reason for the actions.

[TheFullHouse]

Well here's my take on it, it's their board, they can set whatever rules they want. They can also boot anyone they want any time. They don't even have to explain it if they choose not to. I've been on here for years and they have always tried to be fair in any given situation but sometimes people will just push too far.

[Guest jade1046]

 

Would it be feasible when situations (such as the reason for this thread) arise, to keep one announcement or link to the story but have it be set up by the moderators such that no replies may be made, along with a warning about violating the TOS? That way people could be informed about what happened and could look elsewhere for further information or discussions outside of GT. Seems like this might eliminate some of the repeat postings and angst over locked or deleted threads.

 

 

Sorry to reply to my own post, but I think this got lost in the shuffle of the most recent bantering. I'd really like to know if this is a legitimate compromise for consideration. I also agree with JillysFullHouse - this is their board and we're all just guests who have agreed to play by the rules.

[TheFullHouse]

Would it be feasible when situations (such as the reason for this thread) arise, to keep one announcement or link to the story but have it be set up by the moderators such that no replies may be made, along with a warning about violating the TOS? That way people could be informed about what happened and could look elsewhere for further information or discussions outside of GT. Seems like this might eliminate some of the repeat postings and angst over locked or deleted threads.

 

 

Sorry to reply to my own post, but I think this got lost in the shuffle of the most recent bantering. I'd really like to know if this is a legitimate compromise for consideration. I also agree with JillysFullHouse - this is their board and we're all just guests who have agreed to play by the rules.

 

 

That's what the announcements forum is for.

[Trudy]

Greytalk is a greyhounds as pets board. Yes, we have ONE racing thread for people following a dog they have or hope to adopt. The racing stuff is kept in there (or is supposed to be and we try to make sure it is). Beyond that, we don't allow racing stuff on GT other than the occasional quick question an adopter has. So combine abuse and racing, no, it isn't something that belongs on Greytalk.

 

And no, it isn't because we are trying to hide abuse that happens in the racing world. This just isn't the forum for it. Abuse is abuse and grab a sensational title as a subject heading, the thread goes away instead of just being closed. No need for it on Greytalk. Every abuse thread posted on GT has led to the exact same thing "I am going to bash their head in." "that person deserves to be torn limb from limb." and other such types of 'hostile' responses. Anger that does nothing to help the situation. Take that energy and do something on a local level to prevent it from happening again to another animal.

 

Besides, posting in the announcements forum didn't really do anything this time other than getting people to use the report button and refrain from responding (so I guess it helped some, but didn't prevent the 15+ threads we removed). So even if posted here, we'd still see it elsewhere.

 

Oh yeah, it isn't just greyhound abuse, it's ALL animal abuse that isn't allowed. So not really "some word that isn't coming to mind" to post a link for each and every abuse story that gets posted on GT (and then removed)

[TheFullHouse]

I think that's exactly what Trudy did after about the 4th thread started on the same subject.

 

Looks like Trudy and I were posting at the same time.

Edited November 9, 2010 by JillysFullHouse

[Guest Swifthounds]

I would venture it would be someone who doesn't have the time to check Greytalk on an hourly/daily basis and thus had no idea that there had been other posts. They may have gotten a link in an email, thought, "hey - GT is talking about it!" (especially in light of all the posts on the Fort Worth Dogs), came onto the board, perused a few pages and saw nothing. So they think, "hey- maybe they don't know!" and post it. Sure they saw this post, but they may not think they are violating as very few people read TOS of any website/agreement/etc. For shame on them, certainly.

 

But again - my point is that one should not assume these people who are being sent on vacation are posting the links with the purpose of being malicious or bratty. There are logical explanations - occam's razor if you wish - for the posts especially as it was a different people at different times.

 

The timing of the posts is irrelevant. I'm not arguing that they all had malicious intent as far as the way they presented the banned content. To agree to TOS, indicate that you agree and then post in direct violation of the TOS, wasting the mods valuable time in warning, making a public announcement, getting folks to report and not respond, and then removing the posts, suspending memberships, and explaining their actions over and over is certainly deliberate defiance of clearly stated parameters. That's disrespectful of the mods and the rest of the community. The intent can be inferred from the action.

 

If you post inviolation of the TOS, you either 1)never read the TOS and thus lied when you signed up, or 2) don't bother to follow the TOS. The entire TOS, including all the words on the page is less than 2,000 words. If you can't be bothered to read the TOS, you should stick to reading and not posting.

[Jeff]

Exactly...