Considering DS is the most popular Big Brother forum, they're highly likely to. I really don't know if you're trolling or not. Do you think Gail's family and friends are simply watching the show without wondering in the slightest what people are saying about her?
It may be the most popular BBUK forum, but that doesn't mean that Gail's friends and family even know that such things exist. I doubt that even the majority of Big Brother fans know about DS. And no, I'm not a troll.
I do agree that her friends and family might pay attention to social media while she's in the house, and perhaps Google her name now and then to see what pops up. Does that thread or this one rank highly on Google?
Well, I predict that the people who have a problem with 'nasty' things said about Gail and those who have a problem with things said about Jenna or Tila or Farrah will remain silent etc when we get the next of the regular rounds of things said about Judi James and how she looks.
And none of the comments are ever said with any genuine malice or cause to offend.
Just a whole bunch of people with different senses of humor which some share and some don't but each to their own.
Yes, please blame me for making this thread, rather than the vile people who made the comments in the first place. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, or debating an issue, but making sarcy personal comments is completely uncalled for.
Calm down. I'm not 'blaming you' for making this thread. You are 100% responsible for creating it, but that isn't an issue with me. Nor did I make any sarcastic personal comment about you. I commented that by creating this thread you have drawn more attention to the other thread in which the offending comments were made, making it more likely that Gail's friends and family would read them. That isn't sarcasm, it's a fact. Do I 'blame' you for this? No, I couldn't care less. Perhaps you should though, given your stance. That was my point.
[Edit] Calling the other FMs who posted the offending comments 'vile' is getting personal though.
It may be the most popular BBUK forum, but that doesn't mean that Gail's friends and family even know that such things exist. I doubt that even the majority of Big Brother fans know about DS. And no, I'm not a troll.
I do agree that her friends and family might pay attention to social media while she's in the house, and perhaps Google her name now and then to see what pops up. Does that thread or this one rank highly on Google?
Considering the BB presenters have made numerous references to Digital Spy (meaning they obvious view this forum and read the threads), I'm pretty sure the people entering the house (and their friends/family) will be aware of it. They obviously have contact with Emma/Rylan/ producers etc prior to their family member going in.
Again, why am I suddenly the one in the wrong purely for highlighting vile comments which were most likely seen by at least some of the people she knew anyway? Are you seriously going to tell me that if someone you knew went on BB, you wouldn't look on internet forums to try and find out what people thought of them?
You're either going to have to learn to ignore such comments, challenge them within the terms and conditions or not read the BB board. If the mods think something is unacceptable they will say so, but they aren't going to stop people from making personal remarks about the housemates - they'd have to have a full team reading every thread.
...
The moderation is 'reactive' (people have to alert), but the mods definitely have taken action over comments made about housemates. Indeed, it even used to be an explicit rule that HMs had to be treated with respect in comments.
The relevant part of the rules these days is this:
2.17 - Offensive Material
You must not post messages that are vulgar, crude, sexist, racist, homophobic or otherwise offensive. We will not tolerate offensive, immature or unconstructive postings.
'[BB Housemate X] is an ugly ****', and '[Random Politician Y] is a prick' are not acceptable. '[BB Housemate Z] is irritating me. Why do they have to shriek so often?' is fine.
Our aim is to make each of our members feel welcome. Racism, homophobia and sexism have no place on our forums and will be dealt with swiftly.
It may be the most popular BBUK forum, but that doesn't mean that Gail's friends and family even know that such things exist. I doubt that even the majority of Big Brother fans know about DS. And no, I'm not a troll.
I do agree that her friends and family might pay attention to social media while she's in the house, and perhaps Google her name now and then to see what pops up. Does that thread or this one rank highly on Google?
This thread came up near the top of the 2nd page when I googled "gail porter big brother" just now (without the quotes) -- along with a thread called ""Is Gail Porter REALLY fit to enter the Celebrity Big Brother ..." (which links to a Mail article with that title).
I didn't spot the threads that originally had the comments, though.
But if her friends and family have ever paid much attention to social media before, they'll know that many people say nasty things and won't be expecting to find only sweetness and light.
This forum probably has more positive than negative comments about her, and even if friends and family looked at this thread, they'd see people taking issue with the negative comments, others saying they weren't meant maliciously, and so on.
Considering the BB presenters have made numerous references to Digital Spy (meaning they obvious view this forum and read the threads), I'm pretty sure the people entering the house (and their friends/family) will be aware of it. They obviously have contact with Emma/Rylan/ producers etc prior to their family member going in.
Again, why am I suddenly the one in the wrong purely for highlighting vile comments which were most likely seen by at least some of the people she knew anyway? Are you seriously going to tell me that if someone you knew went on BB, you wouldn't look on internet forums to try and find out what people thought of them?
I'm a member of DS. When Big Brother is on I visit this forum every day, regardless of the fact that I'm not related to them, and yet I and other FMs missed that particular page in that particular thread as it whizzed by. How likely is it that non-forum members missed it too? Highly likely, I should think. It would be slightly more unlikely for them to miss this entire thread though, would it not?
And none of the comments are ever said with any genuine malice or cause to offend.
Just a whole bunch of people with different senses of humor which some share and some don't but each to their own.
Making comments about the way someone looks is not okay. I don't see how this is a debateable issue. I'm sure to the school bully, laughing at the 'fat kid' or the 'ginger kid' or the 'weird kid' was ''just a bit of fun.'' Ask the person on the receiving end if they found it funny, and see what kind of response you get,
This thread came up near the top of the 2nd page when I googled "gail porter big brother" just now (without the quotes) -- along with a thread called ""Is Gail Porter REALLY fit to enter the Celebrity Big Brother ..." (which links to a Mail article with that title).
I didn't spot the threads that originally had the comments, though.
But if her friends and family have ever paid much attention to social media before, they'll know that many people say nasty things and won't be expecting to find only sweetness and light.
This forum probably has more positive than negative comments about her, and even if friends and family looked at this thread, they'd see people taking issue with the negative comments, others saying they weren't meant maliciously, and so on.
I concur. And yet the live thread doesn't feature at all (or at least not for 10 pages). I rest my case.
As others pointed out, the majority of the distasteful comments would've been and gone before most people would've had chance to see them - the live threads race through so quickly, that you end up missing pages at a time. Fortunately as we watched the show about an hour behind, we missed these comments at the time.
As for Gail (and many of the other intros), we skipped past the VT, so didn't realise she had alopecia. I thought I had heard many years ago that she'd had chemotherapy (hence the hair loss), so was surprised when she said about alopecia when talking in the house.
Still, she still has an engaging personality and hopefully will have a good experience in there... and if her friends and family think it wise to go looking on sites like this, or twitter for feedback, you're always going to get some people who think they're funny but just take it a bit too far.
Considering the BB presenters have made numerous references to Digital Spy (meaning they obvious view this forum and read the threads), I'm pretty sure the people entering the house (and their friends/family) will be aware of it. They obviously have contact with Emma/Rylan/ producers etc prior to their family member going in.
The presenters occasionally mention Digital Spy (almost always disparagingly). That doesn't mean they view the forum or read the threads, or that the presenters or producers would mention D Spy to friends or family, much less suggest that they go here. At least some HMs were advised not to read this forum, and I think that was good advice.
Again, why am I suddenly the one in the wrong purely for highlighting vile comments which were most likely seen by at least some of the people she knew anyway? Are you seriously going to tell me that if someone you knew went on BB, you wouldn't look on internet forums to try and find out what people thought of them?
I still don't think it is at all likely that the comments were seen by her friends or family.
Asking people in a forum whether they would go to a forum isn't a good way to find out what other people would do. We're a small, atypical minority of BB viewers.
Actually, most porn stars hardly make any money. The ones who do have been able to very cleverly market themselves to a mainstream audience, and become a 'brand.' Even people who have never seen Jenna in porn films know who she is because she's become incredibly famous and well known. That takes a hell of a lot, especially years ago before all this social media. How many porn stars are famous enough to make it onto Big Brother? Hardly any, because most porn stars aren't well known at all. And they don't actually get paid much considering what they do. So it's not about spending time on all fours, as you so crudely put it. It's about being business minded and building up your brand. Which Jenna has. And I respect her for that.
As for being ''pretty sure'' that Gail's friends and family will have seen the live thread. Yes, I'm speculating. Which is why I'm only ''pretty sure.'' But, as I said. If someone who I was related to/friends with/cared about went on BB, I'd definitely look at the live thread reaction to their entrance into the BB house, just to see what people were saying about them. I'm assuming most people would if they knew someone in the BB house. I mean, we all look at threads and post in them, yet we don't even know anyone in the house.
You're very keen to write opinion as fact.
First quote in bold: i haven't a clue who Jenna is/was, so her fame didn't permeate my life despite your opinion.
Second quote in bold: well there's three porn "stars" in there now out of 12 so that's 25% of this series made up of porn "stars" more than "hardly any".
Those two quotes are about as accurate as your "pretty sure Gail's friends and family" were reading the WHATM thread.
As others have said why not confront the poster as it was posted in the thread it was posted in.?This looks very odd, you have posted that you want to encourage other FMs to alert them so what this thread is where we collect our pitchforks and burning torches ?
In the T&Cs it says "Further, please don't 'add fuel to the fire' by saying "I've reported you!" " so you've broken that one for a start...
Technically isn't it baiting to organise groups of people to deliberately report people?
It's definitely against the T&Cs to make personal remarks and call FMs "nasty malicious idiots" as you have done:
"2.9 - Respect
While you are of course welcome to disagree with other members, we will not tolerate posts which insult, belittle, bait or otherwise antagonise forum members. This includes posts which disrespectfully label others posters as 'fanboys', 'haters' or similar."
Making comments about the way someone looks is not okay. I don't see how this is a debateable issue. I'm sure to the school bully, laughing at the 'fat kid' or the 'ginger kid' or the 'weird kid' was ''just a bit of fun.'' Ask the person on the receiving end if they found it funny, and see what kind of response you get,
It is a debatable issue when some are taking some comments out of context and making them seem far worse than they may have been and labelling those posters all kinds of things from vile to nasty to ignorant when you don't even know them!
There's a difference between bullying and passing comment based on appearance which all housemates are subjected to whether it's right or wrong in yours or anyone else's eyes.
Likening her to Matt Lucas (many HM's over the years have been 'lookaliked' !) is NO different to a mate who once likened me to Alice Cooper. Or no different to the start of this years civilian BB when my initial reaction to Danny Whisker was how much he resembled Lee Ryan in his promo shot.
Making comments about the way someone looks is not okay. I don't see how this is a debateable issue. I'm sure to the school bully, laughing at the 'fat kid' or the 'ginger kid' or the 'weird kid' was ''just a bit of fun.'' Ask the person on the receiving end if they found it funny, and see what kind of response you get,
I agree it's not nice but then neither is calling the FMs here:
"nasty malicious idiots" as you did in post 1
In post 36 you encourage other people to report the posts you don't like, that's a bit like bullying isn't it? getting a gang together to silence a voice you don't like? hmmmmm
in post 90 you say "I don't see anything wrong with people debating issues, so long as posters do so in a respectful, articulate way" you didn't do that though did you ?you tried to stir up a little gang of outrage behind the posters' backs, how is that debating?
What's respectful about calling people "nasty malicious idiots" and encouraging people to call FMs "vile" etc? i didn't see your outrage at the post making a joke about the posters you don't like saying they had "mental retardation" or "some form of dementia" that's much more insulting than saying someone looks like Matt Lucas.
Whilst i'm not a fan of comments about people's looks ("he is so fit" is just as bad) this whole making a massive drama and trying to drum up outrage and aggression towards people because they made a joke you didn't like is actually worse. And cowardly.
Making comments about the way someone looks is not okay. I don't see how this is a debateable issue. I'm sure to the school bully, laughing at the 'fat kid' or the 'ginger kid' or the 'weird kid' was ''just a bit of fun.'' Ask the person on the receiving end if they found it funny, and see what kind of response you get,
If comments about looks aren't ok, it's not entirely clear why. When people try to explain why comment about looks are unacceptable, they usually say it's wrong because people can't help how they look. But people similarly can't help how smart (or not) they are, and yet comments about HM stupidity aren't seen as unacceptable in the same way. People also can't freely choose their personality, yet negative comments about their personality aren't seen as unacceptable either.
Even comments about looks aren't treated consistently. Judi James, for example, I've already mentioned, and there were comments about her tonight even though she wasn't in any of the shows.
In any case, there's a big difference between a school bully laughing at a kid and people making comments in a forum without any malicious intent
You're very keen to write opinion as fact.
First quote in bold: i haven't a clue who Jenna is/was, so her fame didn't permeate my life despite your opinion.
Second quote in bold: well there's three porn "stars" in there now out of 12 so that's 25% of this series made up of porn "stars" more than "hardly any".
Those two quotes are about as accurate as your "pretty sure Gail's friends and family" were reading the WHATM thread.
As others have said why not confront the poster as it was posted in the thread it was posted in.?This looks very odd, you have posted that you want to encourage other FMs to alert them so what this thread is where we collect our pitchforks and burning torches ?
In the T&Cs it says "Further, please don't 'add fuel to the fire' by saying "I've reported you!" " so you've broken that one for a start...
Technically isn't it baiting to organise groups of people to deliberately report people?
It's definitely against the T&Cs to make personal remarks and call FMs "nasty malicious idiots" as you have done:
"2.9 - Respect
While you are of course welcome to disagree with other members, we will not tolerate posts which insult, belittle, bait or otherwise antagonise forum members. This includes posts which disrespectfully label others posters as 'fanboys', 'haters' or similar."
I didn't state (or imply, for that matter) that everyone knows who Jenna is. I simply said: ''Even people who have never seen Jenna in porn films know who she is because she's become incredibly famous and well known.'' That's very different from stating that everyone on the planet knows about her. And it IS a fact. Not everyone knows who she is. But a proportion of people who know who she is will have never seen a porn film involving her. Including myself. So that's a fact rather than an opinion.
Also: The other ''porn stars'' in there were initially famous (and are still more well known) for doing other things (reality television) rather than porn. They may have one or two leaked sex tapes out there, but that is very different to being a porn star, and it occurred AFTER their reality T.V shows. They are not porn stars.
I've already said why I didn't address the posters in the thread in question. It's a fast moving thread, and by the time it took me to construct a reply, the thread would have moved on and my replies would have been lost within it and most likely not seen by the posters.
I didn't mention any posters by name, and simply highlighted an issue which I thought was important, so that if other posters felt the same, they would be able to highlight it also to the moderators. I certainly didn't encourage people to get pitchforks and go on a witch hunt against posters.
I wasn't presenting opinion as fact in any way. You mention me saying ''I'm pretty sure Gail's friends and family would have seen the live thread.'' That's my personal opinion, and I wasn't presenting it as fact. If I was, I would have said ''Gail's friends and family read the live thread.'' I didn't say that, so please tell me how I'm presenting opinion as fact?
I agree it's not nice but then neither is calling the FMs here:
"nasty malicious idiots" as you did in post 1
In post 36 you encourage other people to report the posts you don't like, that's a bit like bullying isn't it? getting a gang together to silence a voice you don't like? hmmmmm
in post 90 you say "I don't see anything wrong with people debating issues, so long as posters do so in a respectful, articulate way" you didn't do that though did you ?you tried to stir up a little gang of outrage behind the posters' backs, how is that debating?
What's respectful about calling people "nasty malicious idiots" and encouraging people to call FMs "vile" etc? i didn't see your outrage at the post making a joke about the posters you don't like saying they had "mental retardation" or "some form of dementia" that's much more insulting than saying someone looks like Matt Lucas.
Whilst i'm not a fan of comments about people's looks ("he is so fit" is just as bad) this whole making a massive drama and trying to drum up outrage and aggression towards people because they made a joke you didn't like is actually worse. And cowardly.
Making a comment about someone's post is entirely different to making a comment about an illness, or their appearance. People are in control of their posts (unless they suffer from a mental illness which renders them incapable of being in control of their actions) yet people are not in control of various conditions which alter their appearance, or their appearance in general. My opinion of the posts in question is that they're vile and bullying. I stand by that.
I didn't, at any point, try to ''stir up a little gang.'' Where in my post did I say ''Complain to the mods about these posts!'' Or tell people they HAD to do something? I didn't. I simply game the information and said it was there for people if they wanted to report it. I also said I personally found it disgusting. That's very different from telling people they MUST find it disgusting, or they MUST report it.
You didn't reply to the original comments in the thread in question because you thought the posters were unlikely to read your replies, and yet you're pretty sure that Gail's friends and family would have read the comments?
You should work for William Hill. I could make a fortune.
I didn't state (or imply, for that matter) that everyone knows who Jenna is. I simply said: ''Even people who have never seen Jenna in porn films know who she is because she's become incredibly famous and well known.'' That's very different from stating that everyone on the planet knows about her. And it IS a fact. Not everyone knows who she is. But a proportion of people who know who she is will have never seen a porn film involving her. Including myself. So that's a fact rather than an opinion.
Also: The other ''porn stars'' in there were initially famous (and are still more well known) for doing other things (reality television) rather than porn. They may have one or two leaked sex tapes out there, but that is very different to being a porn star, and it occurred AFTER their reality T.V shows. They are not porn stars.
I've already said why I didn't address the posters in the thread in question. It's a fast moving thread, and by the time it took me to construct a reply, the thread would have moved on and my replies would have been lost within it and most likely not seen by the posters.
I didn't mention any posters by name, and simply highlighted an issue which I thought was important, so that if other posters felt the same, they would be able to highlight it also to the moderators. I certainly didn't encourage people to get pitchforks and go on a witch hunt against posters.
I wasn't presenting opinion as fact in any way. You mention me saying ''I'm pretty sure Gail's friends and family would have seen the live thread.'' That's my personal opinion, and I wasn't presenting it as fact. If I was, I would have said ''Gail's friends and family read the live thread.'' I didn't say that, so please tell me how I'm presenting opinion as fact?
You didn't mention the posters by name no, but in a later post (post 33) you went back and noted all the post numbers down and posted them to direct all the outrage there and make sure everyone knew who they were and alert them and hopefully get them banned, that's what you can see when you read through the thread....
I read this thread all in one go and when read like that it comes across as you encouraging people, in post 36 for example "I simply highlighted posts which I think are completely disgusting (which I have every right to do) in the hope that people will report the posts." That's encouraging people to hunt the posts down and alert them!!!
Metaphoric pitchfork!
How would feel if instead of talking directly to you like i am here, i created a thread about your post and encouraged everyone to alert your posts to get you banned because i didn't agree with you calling other FMs "nasty malicious idiots" ?
Making a comment about someone's post is entirely different to making a comment about an illness, or their appearance. People are in control of their posts (unless they suffer from a mental illness which renders them incapable of being in control of their actions) yet people are not in control of various conditions which alter their appearance, or their appearance in general. My opinion of the posts in question is that they're vile and bullying. I stand by that.
I didn't, at any point, try to ''stir up a little gang.'' Where in my post did I say ''Complain to the mods about these posts!'' Or tell people they HAD to do something? I didn't. I simply game the information and said it was there for people if they wanted to report it. I also said I personally found it disgusting. That's very different from telling people they MUST find it disgusting, or they MUST report it.
You didn't restrict your comments to referring to the posts. You also made comments about the FMs: "nasty malicious idiots"
I have never claimed to be the forum police. I simply highlighted posts which I think are completely disgusting (which I have every right to do) in the hope that people will report the posts.
Yet you were quite happy as i said for the posters you didn't like to be called names and for people to joke about them "having mental retardation" and "some form of dementia". Right ok.^_^
You didn't reply to the original comments in the thread in question because you thought the posters were unlikely to read your replies, and yet you're pretty sure that Gail's friends and family would have read the comments?
You should work for William Hill. I could make a fortune.
People who have a family member/friend in the show are far more likely to read threads more thoroughly than someone who makes an offhand remark about someone's appearance because it's 'funny.' As I've said, if I knew about this forum, and someone I knew was going into BB, I'd be paying particular attention to the response of forum members as they went in. Therefore, I'd be very likely to see the comments made about them, because I'd refresh the thread/keep up with it as my friend/family member entered the house. I'd do that, because it has specific relevance to me due to the fact that it's someone who I know personally.
If I made a comment in the live thread as a viewer, I'd be less likely to be refreshing the thread/reading every post just in case someone had replied to me.
Comments
It may be the most popular BBUK forum, but that doesn't mean that Gail's friends and family even know that such things exist. I doubt that even the majority of Big Brother fans know about DS. And no, I'm not a troll.
I do agree that her friends and family might pay attention to social media while she's in the house, and perhaps Google her name now and then to see what pops up. Does that thread or this one rank highly on Google?
And none of the comments are ever said with any genuine malice or cause to offend.
Just a whole bunch of people with different senses of humor which some share and some don't but each to their own.
Calm down. I'm not 'blaming you' for making this thread. You are 100% responsible for creating it, but that isn't an issue with me. Nor did I make any sarcastic personal comment about you. I commented that by creating this thread you have drawn more attention to the other thread in which the offending comments were made, making it more likely that Gail's friends and family would read them. That isn't sarcasm, it's a fact. Do I 'blame' you for this? No, I couldn't care less. Perhaps you should though, given your stance. That was my point.
[Edit] Calling the other FMs who posted the offending comments 'vile' is getting personal though.
Considering the BB presenters have made numerous references to Digital Spy (meaning they obvious view this forum and read the threads), I'm pretty sure the people entering the house (and their friends/family) will be aware of it. They obviously have contact with Emma/Rylan/ producers etc prior to their family member going in.
Again, why am I suddenly the one in the wrong purely for highlighting vile comments which were most likely seen by at least some of the people she knew anyway? Are you seriously going to tell me that if someone you knew went on BB, you wouldn't look on internet forums to try and find out what people thought of them?
The moderation is 'reactive' (people have to alert), but the mods definitely have taken action over comments made about housemates. Indeed, it even used to be an explicit rule that HMs had to be treated with respect in comments.
The relevant part of the rules these days is this:
This thread came up near the top of the 2nd page when I googled "gail porter big brother" just now (without the quotes) -- along with a thread called ""Is Gail Porter REALLY fit to enter the Celebrity Big Brother ..." (which links to a Mail article with that title).
I didn't spot the threads that originally had the comments, though.
But if her friends and family have ever paid much attention to social media before, they'll know that many people say nasty things and won't be expecting to find only sweetness and light.
This forum probably has more positive than negative comments about her, and even if friends and family looked at this thread, they'd see people taking issue with the negative comments, others saying they weren't meant maliciously, and so on.
I'm a member of DS. When Big Brother is on I visit this forum every day, regardless of the fact that I'm not related to them, and yet I and other FMs missed that particular page in that particular thread as it whizzed by. How likely is it that non-forum members missed it too? Highly likely, I should think. It would be slightly more unlikely for them to miss this entire thread though, would it not?
Making comments about the way someone looks is not okay. I don't see how this is a debateable issue. I'm sure to the school bully, laughing at the 'fat kid' or the 'ginger kid' or the 'weird kid' was ''just a bit of fun.'' Ask the person on the receiving end if they found it funny, and see what kind of response you get,
I concur. And yet the live thread doesn't feature at all (or at least not for 10 pages). I rest my case.
As for Gail (and many of the other intros), we skipped past the VT, so didn't realise she had alopecia. I thought I had heard many years ago that she'd had chemotherapy (hence the hair loss), so was surprised when she said about alopecia when talking in the house.
Still, she still has an engaging personality and hopefully will have a good experience in there... and if her friends and family think it wise to go looking on sites like this, or twitter for feedback, you're always going to get some people who think they're funny but just take it a bit too far.
The presenters occasionally mention Digital Spy (almost always disparagingly). That doesn't mean they view the forum or read the threads, or that the presenters or producers would mention D Spy to friends or family, much less suggest that they go here. At least some HMs were advised not to read this forum, and I think that was good advice.
I still don't think it is at all likely that the comments were seen by her friends or family.
Asking people in a forum whether they would go to a forum isn't a good way to find out what other people would do. We're a small, atypical minority of BB viewers.
You're very keen to write opinion as fact.
First quote in bold: i haven't a clue who Jenna is/was, so her fame didn't permeate my life despite your opinion.
Second quote in bold: well there's three porn "stars" in there now out of 12 so that's 25% of this series made up of porn "stars" more than "hardly any".
Those two quotes are about as accurate as your "pretty sure Gail's friends and family" were reading the WHATM thread.
As others have said why not confront the poster as it was posted in the thread it was posted in.?This looks very odd, you have posted that you want to encourage other FMs to alert them so what this thread is where we collect our pitchforks and burning torches ?
In the T&Cs it says "Further, please don't 'add fuel to the fire' by saying "I've reported you!" " so you've broken that one for a start...
Technically isn't it baiting to organise groups of people to deliberately report people?
It's definitely against the T&Cs to make personal remarks and call FMs "nasty malicious idiots" as you have done:
"2.9 - Respect
While you are of course welcome to disagree with other members, we will not tolerate posts which insult, belittle, bait or otherwise antagonise forum members. This includes posts which disrespectfully label others posters as 'fanboys', 'haters' or similar."
It is a debatable issue when some are taking some comments out of context and making them seem far worse than they may have been and labelling those posters all kinds of things from vile to nasty to ignorant when you don't even know them!
There's a difference between bullying and passing comment based on appearance which all housemates are subjected to whether it's right or wrong in yours or anyone else's eyes.
Likening her to Matt Lucas (many HM's over the years have been 'lookaliked' !) is NO different to a mate who once likened me to Alice Cooper. Or no different to the start of this years civilian BB when my initial reaction to Danny Whisker was how much he resembled Lee Ryan in his promo shot.
I agree it's not nice but then neither is calling the FMs here:
"nasty malicious idiots" as you did in post 1
In post 36 you encourage other people to report the posts you don't like, that's a bit like bullying isn't it? getting a gang together to silence a voice you don't like? hmmmmm
in post 90 you say "I don't see anything wrong with people debating issues, so long as posters do so in a respectful, articulate way" you didn't do that though did you ?you tried to stir up a little gang of outrage behind the posters' backs, how is that debating?
What's respectful about calling people "nasty malicious idiots" and encouraging people to call FMs "vile" etc? i didn't see your outrage at the post making a joke about the posters you don't like saying they had "mental retardation" or "some form of dementia" that's much more insulting than saying someone looks like Matt Lucas.
Whilst i'm not a fan of comments about people's looks ("he is so fit" is just as bad) this whole making a massive drama and trying to drum up outrage and aggression towards people because they made a joke you didn't like is actually worse. And cowardly.
If comments about looks aren't ok, it's not entirely clear why. When people try to explain why comment about looks are unacceptable, they usually say it's wrong because people can't help how they look. But people similarly can't help how smart (or not) they are, and yet comments about HM stupidity aren't seen as unacceptable in the same way. People also can't freely choose their personality, yet negative comments about their personality aren't seen as unacceptable either.
Even comments about looks aren't treated consistently. Judi James, for example, I've already mentioned, and there were comments about her tonight even though she wasn't in any of the shows.
In any case, there's a big difference between a school bully laughing at a kid and people making comments in a forum without any malicious intent
I didn't state (or imply, for that matter) that everyone knows who Jenna is. I simply said: ''Even people who have never seen Jenna in porn films know who she is because she's become incredibly famous and well known.'' That's very different from stating that everyone on the planet knows about her. And it IS a fact. Not everyone knows who she is. But a proportion of people who know who she is will have never seen a porn film involving her. Including myself. So that's a fact rather than an opinion.
Also: The other ''porn stars'' in there were initially famous (and are still more well known) for doing other things (reality television) rather than porn. They may have one or two leaked sex tapes out there, but that is very different to being a porn star, and it occurred AFTER their reality T.V shows. They are not porn stars.
I've already said why I didn't address the posters in the thread in question. It's a fast moving thread, and by the time it took me to construct a reply, the thread would have moved on and my replies would have been lost within it and most likely not seen by the posters.
I didn't mention any posters by name, and simply highlighted an issue which I thought was important, so that if other posters felt the same, they would be able to highlight it also to the moderators. I certainly didn't encourage people to get pitchforks and go on a witch hunt against posters.
I wasn't presenting opinion as fact in any way. You mention me saying ''I'm pretty sure Gail's friends and family would have seen the live thread.'' That's my personal opinion, and I wasn't presenting it as fact. If I was, I would have said ''Gail's friends and family read the live thread.'' I didn't say that, so please tell me how I'm presenting opinion as fact?
Making a comment about someone's post is entirely different to making a comment about an illness, or their appearance. People are in control of their posts (unless they suffer from a mental illness which renders them incapable of being in control of their actions) yet people are not in control of various conditions which alter their appearance, or their appearance in general. My opinion of the posts in question is that they're vile and bullying. I stand by that.
I didn't, at any point, try to ''stir up a little gang.'' Where in my post did I say ''Complain to the mods about these posts!'' Or tell people they HAD to do something? I didn't. I simply game the information and said it was there for people if they wanted to report it. I also said I personally found it disgusting. That's very different from telling people they MUST find it disgusting, or they MUST report it.
You should work for William Hill. I could make a fortune.
You didn't mention the posters by name no, but in a later post (post 33) you went back and noted all the post numbers down and posted them to direct all the outrage there and make sure everyone knew who they were and alert them and hopefully get them banned, that's what you can see when you read through the thread....
I read this thread all in one go and when read like that it comes across as you encouraging people, in post 36 for example "I simply highlighted posts which I think are completely disgusting (which I have every right to do) in the hope that people will report the posts." That's encouraging people to hunt the posts down and alert them!!!
Metaphoric pitchfork!
How would feel if instead of talking directly to you like i am here, i created a thread about your post and encouraged everyone to alert your posts to get you banned because i didn't agree with you calling other FMs "nasty malicious idiots" ?
I want Chris to win even though he looks like a white Malteaser!
You didn't restrict your comments to referring to the posts. You also made comments about the FMs: "nasty malicious idiots"
BIB you did that in post 36:
Yet you were quite happy as i said for the posters you didn't like to be called names and for people to joke about them "having mental retardation" and "some form of dementia". Right ok.^_^
who's Uncle Fester?
People who have a family member/friend in the show are far more likely to read threads more thoroughly than someone who makes an offhand remark about someone's appearance because it's 'funny.' As I've said, if I knew about this forum, and someone I knew was going into BB, I'd be paying particular attention to the response of forum members as they went in. Therefore, I'd be very likely to see the comments made about them, because I'd refresh the thread/keep up with it as my friend/family member entered the house. I'd do that, because it has specific relevance to me due to the fact that it's someone who I know personally.
If I made a comment in the live thread as a viewer, I'd be less likely to be refreshing the thread/reading every post just in case someone had replied to me.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this.
Porters look a like.
Google it yourself instead of asking someone to do it for you! ;-)