Is it against the rules to trash talk ISPs?

Under this rule, he can basically tear into the manufacturer of his router all he wants, but the second he mentions the ISP? He’s out. They’re just way too sensitive about their brand image... 🙂

I’m more than happy to trash this subforum rule you didn't even write, and instead of actually giving an opinion on it, you just barge in with your nonsense like you're some kind of expert. I know these 20,000 posts better than you ever will.

For the fifth time: I’m not whining about a ban, I’m starting a thread about this stupid rule that makes zero sense.
The general rules don't say a damn thing about profanity; there’s only stuff about attacking other users or hate speech regarding religion, nationality, or race.

My question is simple: why is there a rule against insulting an internet provider?
Why is that banned, while it's perfectly fine to trash Lino Červar, a camera, or the Department of Transportation...

If you think there's nothing useful here, that's on you. The mod has absolutely no reason to lock this thread because if you had any actual brain cells, you'd see this isn't a complaint—it's pointing out how illogical this is.
If you realized that from the jump, you wouldn't be acting all high and mighty trying to lecture me on what a moderator's job is.
Later.

granitefox16 said:The question is, why is there a rule against insulting the ISP?
Why is that forbidden, yet it's perfectly fine to insult Lino Červar, cameras, or the Department of Sanitation...

I am telling you for the tenth time already: the admins have been notified. If they want to respond, they will. How many times do we have to repeat ourselves? If they decide to say something, they'll unlock the thread and post their reply. Everyone else here—aside from the admins—has already said everything they have to say, so this thread can be locked.

edge79, look, I don’t really have much skin in this game, and I’m wondering if I can even weigh in here without everyone thinking I’ve got a horse in this race, but here goes nothing.
1. Everyone loves playing the hero for the "little guy," and everyone loves tearing down "big institutions," regardless of whether the little guy actually has a leg to stand on or if the institution is actually doing its job.
2. Honestly, that rule mentioned in the PDF sounds just as clunky to me as it does to you, but if I were in your shoes, I’d probably start by checking with the mods to see if there was some specific reason they felt the need to spell it out like that—because, let’s be real, nobody writes extra rules just for the sake of making life difficult.
3. Even if we ignore the technicalities of the written rules for a second, that post really should have been flagged or sanctioned.
4. You’re busy yelling at the ISP, but you haven't even bothered to look into who actually owns the lines, where the responsibility actually lies, or what the actual industry standards are for this kind of service.
5. At the end of the day, you're just venting at the provider because your wife signed off on something—which, frankly, is a bit much.
6. It doesn't really matter who you're aiming your frustration at, but it would be a lot more productive to actually get the facts straight before you start firing shots in every direction.

That’s my two cents, anyway; I can certainly go deeper into these points if people want to actually use some logic and common sense instead of just letting emotions run the show.
🙂

crimsonsailor7 said:The rules are basically the same. I mean, they aren't identical, but an entry like that would get flagged here too.

Not even close:

Rules PDF. Legal Forum said:Prohibited activities include:
- any form of advertising
- discrimination on any grounds or harassment
- starting threads (or posting) intended to provoke, insult, or disparage individuals or institutions
- direct or indirect incitement to criminal acts or supporting such acts in posts, including encouraging illegal activity
- commenting on specific court rulings that haven't been finalized (generally preliminary rulings), because under U.S. law, that can be seen as jury tampering or pressuring the court, which is a crime. If you have questions about a specific case or ruling—better to keep it general.

The rules ban insults....
On the other site, insulting your ISP is banned.

Stop comparing a serious legal subforum to some random corner of the internet...

And why would it get locked? I’m also wondering why there’s a ban on trashing internet service providers.
It’s like if we banned people from badmouthing news networks on other media.
Besides, as far as I know, moderators set the rules for their own forums, not the admins.

So yeah, I’d love a logical explanation for this rule. I have my own reasons—mostly just a strong desire to tear into one specific provider.

Thank God someone finally spoke up, because the mods are just sinking deeper into the mud as this thread goes on. ☕

The rule is a joke. It flies in the face of anyone with even a shred of common sense. 🙂

Jacob Foster11 said:Look, I’ve told you ten times already—the admins know what’s up. If they want to chime in, they will. How many times do we have to loop back to this? If they feel like responding, they’ll unlock the thread and drop their take. Everyone else here besides the mods has already said their piece, so this thread should just be locked...

So you don't actually have an opinion, you're just waiting for some admin to tell you what to think?

hollowtrucker77 said:granitefox16, I’m not really involved in this drama, but maybe I can weigh in without sounding biased?
1. Everyone loves trashing "big corporations" and playing the "little guy" card, regardless of who's actually right.
2. That rule in the FAQ sounds stupid to me too, but I’d probably check with the mods first to see if there’s a reason it was even written. I mean, nobody writes rules for no reason...
3. Honestly, that post should get flagged anyway, rule or no rule.
4. You’re busy venting at the ISP, but you aren't even looking into who actually owns the lines or what the actual service standards are.
5. You're losing it at the provider just because your wife signed some paperwork (!!??!!)
6. Doesn't matter who you're mad at, but it would be nice to actually do some research before you start a fire...

That's my two cents. I can go deeper if needed, but let's try using some logic instead of just pure emotion...
🙂

The point is, on this sub, bashing an ISP is against the rules. Understand that if I had trashed my router like that, I wouldn't be getting banned because it doesn't break any forum rules.
I'm pointing out the hypocrisy here, not whining, but clearly this mod isn't smart enough to grasp it yet.

I'm pissed at the ISP because they are selling me a service they don't actually provide.
I didn't ask for a phone line, high-speed internet, or cable TV; they pushed all of it on me by hounding me during my free time.
I signed a contract with the provider, and that same provider fails to hit the speeds promised in the contract EVERY single time. My internet cuts out five times a day, the TV service is basically dead, and my landline dies whenever there's bad weather.

And their response to my hundred calls? They send some tech out who scribbles some nonsense report saying I’ll just cancel part of the service if the problems continue.

It's just typical low-class garbage where the only way to deal with them is to trash them and tell them where to shove it.

But whatever, that's not the topic...

hollowtrucker77 is just hanging out here today, acting like any other guy on this forum with his own set of opinions, just like everyone else
It’s a different story when you consider that I might actually have a bit more perspective on things, which gives me a slightly broader view of how and why certain things tend to play out the way they do

granitefox16 said:Look, insults are strictly against the rules here.
Even on sites like Reddit, you can't just go around insulting the service providers or the platform itself.

So, let's not try to compare a serious discussion sub-forum like this one to some random thread on Reddit...

That’s really all I have to say about it, then 😁
Personal attacks and belittling people are both banned... honestly, if you used that kind of language in an actual post, you'd be getting flagged by the mods regardless of how you tried to justify it. There’s a massive difference between calling out someone for being a crook or a jerk, and the way you're talking right now...

And hey, when you start trashing the platform, you're basically disrespecting the moderators and the whole community too🙂

Anyway, that's my two cents...

edge, give the mods a break here, it’s not really the guy's fault if the rule was worded like a total mess on the PDF
besides, it's entirely plausible the wording was just clunky because they were probably scrambling to satisfy some massive wave of complaints hitting the ISPs
🙂
a suggestion for the mod team regarding the online PDF: maybe just cut out the part about "per ISP" entirely
🙂
edge, you should really be breathing down the neck of whoever owns the line and working directly with the service provider to figure out how to fix that specific issue
you're the one admitting that connection quality fluctuates based on the time of day, humidity, or even rain...
at that point, an ISP really has no choice but to throttle their service level down to whatever the physical line can actually handle
and don't forget, this isn't exactly ideal for them either, since lower service levels mean they're essentially leaving money on the table

hollowtrucker77 said:sash is just here to share his opinion, just like everyone else else
maybe because I actually see the bigger picture, I get why things happen the way they do...

We can talk about that in that other thread, if I even feel like going back there.😁

I know you're coming for AT&T, but I didn't sign anything with them—it was Verizon, and they're the ones failing to deliver what they promised.
Whatever issues those guys are having isn't my damn problem...

Fine, I didn't mean it needs to be locked down. I only said that because it felt like we were getting off track.

Here is one of the moderator guidelines:

The goal is for this forum to remain a pleasant space for sharing opinions, experiences, information, and entertainment. We want people here to be able to have civilized discussions.

It’s obvious this rule stems directly from that directive. Furthermore, insults can actually be illegal under US law. A warning is really the bare minimum penalty you could hand out.

Thirdly—and yes, I am repeating myself—there is an existing thread where rules can be discussed, provided the debate remains civilized and reasoned. So far, that hasn't been the case here.

crimsonsailor7 said:Just one more thing and I'm done with this...😁
Insults and disrespect are banned here... using the kind of language you used in that specific post would get you flagged regardless of how you try to justify it. There's a massive difference between calling someone a crook and the garbage you're spewing.

Fine, so what if I go find 50 other posts on this whole board where people are trashing institutions, officials, and individuals even worse than you, yet somehow they don't get banned? What am I supposed to prove then?😁

Jacob Foster11 said:Second thing, insults are actually illegal. A ban is basically the lightest punishment they can hand out.

The ban I got was for breaking subforum rules, not for insulting anyone, but fine—if this is the new precedent where you get punished for criticizing companies, then whatever, let me be the first...

It’ll be real interesting to see how they try to enforce this rule moving forward.
As for the insults, don't sweat it. I wasn't even insulting what I said over the phone, it's just a shame I can't get my hands on those lowlifes in person...

granitefox16 said:Don't sweat the insults. I wasn't attacking what I said over the phone. It's just a shame I can't get my hands on those lowlifes in person.

For those interested, here is the legal excerpt:

Insult
Section 199.
(1) Anyone who insults another person
shall be punished by a fine of up to one hundred days' worth of income.
(2) Anyone who insults another person through the press, radio, television, in front of a group of people, at a public gathering, or by any other means that makes the insult accessible to a larger number of people,
shall be punished by a fine of up to sixty days' worth of income.
(3) If the insulted party retaliates with an insult, the court may waive the penalties for both parties.

Look, granitefox16, we all have those moments where we just lose our cool, and honestly, it’s not exactly a stretch to start throwing insults or getting aggressive when things go south here.
Come on, you’ve got to realize that even the moderators are basically walking a tightrope between trying to be reasonable and just tossing out every standard rule in the book because they can.
That’s really what makes working with people such a massive headache in the first place.
🙂

Jacob Foster11 said:Here’s a snippet from the legal code...

Great, now you open a thread about Zdravko Mamić on a PDF. Go ahead, post it in the Football section and start handing out red cards... just remember that under US law, that’s a quick way to get sued...

hollowtrucker77 said:granitefox16, we all snap sometimes... and finding someone to rip into isn't exactly hard...
Man, just get it through your head... the mods are basically walking a tightrope between actually using common sense and just throwing all the rules out the window entirely...
That's exactly why working with people is such a massive pain in the ass...
🙂

Look, I'm not coming for the mods personally... just the rule itself...🙂

granitefox16 said:We can dive into that over on the other thread, though I’m honestly not sure how much I even want to drag myself back into that mess.😁

Look, I get that you’re taking aim at AT&T, but my contract isn't with them—it’s with Verizon, and they’re the ones failing to deliver what they actually promised me.
Whatever issues they might be having with their purple branding or whatever isn't really my concern.

Just imagine if you had signed a deal with me where I’m obligated to drop off 100 fresh duck eggs at your door every single morning at exactly 8:00 AM.
Now, say at 7:00 AM, a flash flood washes out the bridge, or lightning strikes my truck, or some other random catastrophe happens—something totally out of our control involving a third party we both rely on.
Would you honestly sit there and blame me for the bridge collapsing, or for the lightning strike, or just because I only have one truck?
If you ask me, we should both just accept the concept of "force majeure," or better yet, we should both go after whoever is responsible for the bridge or the flooding, since we're both losing out here.
But hey, it’s your call; personally, I think acting otherwise is just a bit childish, almost like throwing a temper tantrum...

hollowtrucker77 said:Imagine if I actually signed a contract agreeing to deliver 100 fresh duck eggs to your doorstep at exactly 8 AM every single morning... what a nightmare...
Then at 7:00, a flood washes out the bridge, or lightning hits a truck, or some other crap happens that neither you nor I can control... or it's just some third party's fault that we're both stuck dealing with...
Am I responsible for the bridge, or the lightning, or just for having one single Ford...
Honestly, both of us need to wrap our heads around what a "superpower" actually means... or we should just go after whoever’s responsible for the water supply or the damn bridges, since we're both losing out because of it...
Honestly, I don't give a damn. It’s pretty childish and just feels like sulking...

Screw this...😁

Imagine if you had to deliver a hundred duck eggs to me every single day... and then some massive flood washes away the bridge on the way...😁

Think he'd actually talk trash to you? Probably...

Whatever you say, man... just shut this thread down already. I've been around here way too long to deal with these pointless topics...🙂