Ask the Speaker II

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Please post any moderation concerns you may have in the correct sub-forum. That would be AtCT. I have included the link too, for your convenience.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iEthan)
    Please post any moderation concerns you may have in the correct sub-forum. That would be AtCT. I have included the link too, for your convenience.
    Except, what Nigel has said isn't to do with moderation, as the moderation has taken place. What this has to do with is MHoC based. When the Speaker made the decision about UKIP, it was MHoC based, and Nigel is asking about conduct for the MHoC, not for TSR. Just like the CT had no input in UKIP's MHoC punishment.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    You first said the CT have no been in contact; you have admitted to lying to the MHoC which is worse. You do not need the CT to take action, the bill intentionally offended a lot of members in the MHoC which was the reason Birchington gave for punishing UKIP. It is unfair one member is allowed to purposefully offend many members of the MHoC, but another group of members are not allowed to: your decision is unfair.
    No I didn't, I said they hadn't raised a moderation matter with me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Except, what Nigel has said isn't to do with moderation, as the moderation has taken place. What this has to do with is MHoC based. When the Speaker made the decision about UKIP, it was MHoC based, and Nigel is asking about conduct for the MHoC, not for TSR. Just like the CT had no input in UKIP's MHoC punishment.
    That's all well and good! Just referring to AtCT because sometimes they forget about these things, that's all
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    No I didn't, I said they hadn't raised a moderation matter with me.
    If the CT removed a thread from the MHoC, that is a moderation matter because removing threads is not routine; the CT have been in contact with you about moderation. But answer the point of my challenge, it is unfair Saoirse can submit an intentionally offensive bill to insult members of the MHoC but UKIP submitting a motion cannot.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iEthan)
    That's all well and good! Just referring to AtCT because sometimes they forget about these things, that's all
    It is good to be provided with a quick link but I suggest you read previous posts to know what is being spoken about before commenting.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    If the CT removed a thread from the MHoC, that is a moderation matter because removing threads is not routine; the CT have been in contact with you about moderation. But answer the point of my challenge, it is unfair Saoirse can submit an intentionally offensive bill to insult members of the MHoC but UKIP submitting a motion cannot.
    Just to add in my two cents to this. I didn't even realise until coming across this that the thread had been deleted, although it is in any case somewhat pointless since it was in cessation and I had always stated I had no intention of taking it further. I haven't heard anything about this from the CT, have not been carded for it or told in any way that I broke the rules in the submission: ergo, I have to assume the thread was deleted for some other reason, such as the amount of off-topic and potentially rule-breaking discussion, rather than because the OP was unacceptable.

    In any case, the Bill as I have stated many times was not intentially offensive but rather a joke on what I see as a ridiculous, illogical and antagonistic proposal by UKIP. It very clearly was not meant to be taken seriously, and I see no reason why it should be censored or punished when your Bill wasn't. Additionally, the Speaker commented on its status as a joke at the time I submitted it, and therefore must have read the Bill and been happy it was appropriate for the MHoC: I do not see why it's reasonable for me to be punished for failing to recognise something was breaking MHoC rules if even the Speaker did not hold that interpretation of them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Lol, Saoirse, an individual made a joke about half the human population being dangerous. UKIP, a group, made a joke about one individual member being an idiot. Who was 'bullying'? Who deserves to be sanctioned? Not Saoirse in my opinion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    UKIP's Bill was also a joke, and quite obviously in fact... The differences are not that great, and in my opinion, if no action is taken, it seems to just be a case of bias.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Just to add in my two cents to this. I didn't even realise until coming across this that the thread had been deleted, although it is in any case somewhat pointless since it was in cessation and I had always stated I had no intention of taking it further. I haven't heard anything about this from the CT, have not been carded for it or told in any way that I broke the rules in the submission: ergo, I have to assume the thread was deleted for some other reason, such as the amount of off-topic and potentially rule-breaking discussion, rather than because the OP was unacceptable.

    In any case, the Bill as I have stated many times was not intentially offensive but rather a joke on what I see as a ridiculous, illogical and antagonistic proposal by UKIP. It very clearly was not meant to be taken seriously, and I see no reason why it should be censored or punished when your Bill wasn't. Additionally, the Speaker commented on its status as a joke at the time I submitted it, and therefore must have read the Bill and been happy it was appropriate for the MHoC: I do not see why it's reasonable for me to be punished for failing to recognise something was breaking MHoC rules if even the Speaker did not hold that interpretation of them.
    That defence does not work because your bill directly called members of the MHoC cis straight white male scum; you were intentionally offensive. Stating your bill was not meant to be taken does not work because the reasoning for UKIP's motion was to take the piss out of Aph, this reasoning was seen by Birchington on a post made in UKIP's private forum but Birchington gave a sanction; you should be sanctioned for your joke. It is reasonable for you to be punished to bring equality of treatment for decisions made, if UKIP receives a sanction for submitting a joke motion that targeted a member of the MHoC, you should receive a sanction for a joke bill that targets members of the MHoC.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Lol, Saoirse, an individual made a joke about half the human population being dangerous. UKIP, a group, made a joke about one individual member being an idiot. Who was 'bullying'? Who deserves to be sanctioned? Not Saoirse in my opinion.
    Saoirse made a joke calling all cis, straight white men scum, Saoirse's insult was directly aimed at lots of members of the MHoC who are cis, white, and male: Saoirse offended many members, UKIP offended one member.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    UKIP's Bill was also a joke, and quite obviously in fact... The differences are not that great, and in my opinion, if no action is taken, it seems to just be a case of bias.
    Malaise was proven in UKIP's motion though, soarice was clearly a joke with no malaise. That's the difference.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    That defence does not work because your bill directly called members of the MHoC cis straight white male scum; you were intentionally offensive. Stating your bill was not meant to be taken does not work because the reasoning for UKIP's motion was to take the piss out of Aph, this reasoning was seen by Birchington on a post made in UKIP's private forum but Birchington gave a sanction; you should be sanctioned for your joke. It is reasonable for you to be punished to bring equality of treatment for decisions made, if UKIP receives a sanction for submitting a joke motion that targeted a member of the MHoC, you should receive a sanction for a joke bill that targets members of the MHoC.
    There's a big difference between you targetting a specific MHoC member, and a joke bill aimed at an idea rather than an individual including an internet meme which has been used by bloggers themselves mocking 'SJWs'. I did not use the term to refer to anyone in this House - how would I even know whether or not individuals here are cis or white? - and even if I had there's a difference between a joke you find in poor taste and a deliberate insult. Calling for censorship just because you don't like something - especially when I'm pretty certain nobody has claimed to have actually been put off using the MHoC by it - is a dangerous path to tread indeed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Malaise was proven in UKIP's motion though, soarice was clearly a joke with no malaise. That's the difference.
    I took great offence from it actually thank you very much.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Saoirse made a joke calling all cis, straight white men scum, Saoirse's insult was directly aimed at lots of members of the MHoC who are cis, white, and male: Saoirse offended many members, UKIP offended one member.
    I'm a cis straight white male and I did not find it offensive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Saoirse made a joke calling all cis, straight white men scum, Saoirse's insult was directly aimed at lots of members of the MHoC who are cis, white, and male: Saoirse offended many members, UKIP offended one member.
    Those offended should raise their hands and expose themselves to ridicule from myself.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Those offended should raise their hands and expose themselves to ridicule from myself.

    Bring on the ridicule then. The report button is at the ready.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    I took great offence from it actually thank you very much.
    Malice requires intent to offend not actual offence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Castrate all men

    Edit: Not all, just the cis straight white men.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Bring on the ridicule then. The report button is at the ready.
    The report button lol. When your leader is back he can tell you off for your safe space building nonsense. :laugh:
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 10, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.