Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Problems in the Politics Forum

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    I'd just like to say that I fully agree with the general point here, and that I'm taking on board all that's being said. However I don't want to start contributing to this thread until I've gauged the opinions of other mods of the forum, so we can come to a consensus as to what extent the forum should be reformed. There's no point in me personally promising x, y and z unless the other mods are behind such things, too. I started a thread in the Politics mods forum last night to bring this to their attention.


  • Options
    #63
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    mike65 wrote: »
    I'm all for a ban on one line rejoinders and one post per hour if only to put a stop to Eurolands gallop.
    The Libya threads are a total no-go area now :(

    It's unfair singling out individual posters but yes, they were interesting threads but they've been ruined. I suppose people could post away and ignore it, but I've lost the will to live already!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #64
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sand wrote: »
    "...Another (..............) liners."

    Thanks Nodin - demonstrates the point.

    Is that supposed to distract from
    United Ireland/Brits did something bad/arent unionists awful" type threads could simply be pushed into the Provo private forum without any further review. The posters who inhabit these threads tend to be already members of the Provo private forum anyway.
    ?

    It's rather naive to expect people not to have axes to grind, but I don't think it too much to expect them to be left at the door when discussing the forum in general.


  • Options
    #65
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    That's a problem, too. The presense of 7 mods and a cmod/admin appeal layer tends to disincentivize decisive action, as the indvidual mod will be wary of the opinions of the others, and being over-ruled in DRP. A full DRP appeal is a time-consuming and sometimes stressful affair. (An appeals system is obviously neccesary, but there's no point in pretending it has no negative consequences.)

    Which is another reason why I would like all the Politics mods to be aware of this thread. If we are to be more decisive in future, with regards to soapboxing etc., then everyone needs to be on board.


  • Options
    #66
    meditraitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,207 ✭✭✭meditraitor


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    I'd just like to say that I fully agree with the general point here, and that I'm taking on board all that's being said. However I don't want to start contributing to this thread until I've gauged the opinions of other mods of the forum, so we can come to a consensus as to what extent the forum should be reformed. There's no point in me personally promising x, y and z unless the other mods are behind such things, too. I started a thread in the Politics mods forum last night to bring this to their attention.

    What points would that be? I know you are saying that we should wait until you gauge the opinions of the other moderators but what are you gauging?

    Ive read the thread and it seems some lines in the sand need to be drawn before moving forward.

    That's a problem, too. The presense of 7 mods and a cmod/admin appeal layer tends to disincentivize decisive action, as the indvidual mod will be wary of the opinions of the others, and being over-ruled in DRP. A full DRP appeal is a time-consuming and sometimes stressful affair. (An appeals system is obviously neccesary, but there's no point in pretending it has no negative consequences.)

    Are you saying that you or any other indivdual feels that your decisions shouldnt be up for approval?

    Essentially the post above looks like you are a bit miffed over having to consider other peoples opinions and you would like some sort of authoritarian mandate to excuse you judgements from pier review?

    What are the negative consequense of the appeals system you speak off?

    I would question whether all the mods are "wary" of the opinions of the others?


    I think Politics is fine the way it is, open and accesable to most.....I know some would like to fense it of to politics majors and sophists but tough! its not going to happen.
    my 2c for what its worth


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #68
    liah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    It's not about censoring anyone's opinion. It's about bringing around civil debate and getting rid of the aggressive posting style that's causing so many people to not want to participate. Their opinions don't factor in.


  • Options
    #69
    meditraitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,207 ✭✭✭meditraitor


    liah wrote: »
    It's not about censoring anyone's opinion. It's about bringing around civil debate and getting rid of the aggressive posting style that's causing so many people to not want to participate. Their opinions don't factor in.

    fair enough, the proposal for one post an hour/thread may just prevent the aggresive posting styles. I would certainly put more thought into replying if this was the case.

    I just like it the way it is, it does seem I am in a minority so I would have no problems trying to adapt to a more thoughtfull and less spitfire approach that breeds aggresive posting.


  • Options
    #70
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    This would be my reading of the situation at the moment. Instead of leading from the front modding is nearly being actioned cowering in the background. This only encourages discussion of lowering standards.


  • Options
    #71
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I have to say this seems to be going down the way of the last discussion on Politics and its moderation.....

    In any 'mixed' forum with a good sized active membership, there's going to be aggression, fiercely heated debate, contempt and various other things that some people find unpleasant. Yes, in an ideal world we should all be the wind beneath each others wings, but at the moment, thats just not the way most people interact. The thing that is possible, and do-able, is to moderate the worst excesses, while allowing the majority of people ready to accept some boundaries exchange ideas/fire with their fellow travellers and opposite numbers.

    If you feel somebody is in breach of the rules, use the report button. If you feel a thread's OP is made with the sole intention of stirring the shit, report it. Low quality posts, unintelligible posts, pic spam, soap boxing - report it. This builds a clear picture of who the serial offenders are, and allows action to be taken.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    meditraitor wrote: »
    What points would that be? I know you are saying that we should wait until you gauge the opinions of the other moderators but what are you gauging?

    Whether the mods think there is a problem; how grave they think that problem is; the extent of the reform that may be neccesary to try to remedy the problem.
    meditraitor wrote: »
    Are you saying that you or any other indivdual feels that your decisions shouldnt be up for approval?

    No. As I said in my post "An appeals system is obviously neccesary, but there's no point in pretending it has no negative consequences."

    A negative aspect of the system can be illustrated with an anecdote. Suppose I see a thread with a poster soapboxing. Other posters are getting frustrated with him, and he's wrecking the thread. I think, as a moderator, that the soapboxer deserves a ban; that his temporary absence would be good for the thread and the forum generally. That view is reinforced by some of the comments here.

    However, some of my co-mods and some cmods and admins may not be as strict on soapboxing as I am. Or, at least, they might not be willing to support me fully. They might agree with the ban, but they won't go out of their way to PM the cmods or post in feedback to "endorse" the action. The ban might go to DRP. I'll have to spend about 30 minutes going through the thread to put forward my side of the case to the cmod (this is in addition to the 30 minutes I will have spent PMing the poster I banned).

    If the cmod does not share my strictness about sopaboxing, he might overturn the ban, particularly if other mods are unwilling to actively support it. If the ban is overturned, my 60 minutes spent on DRP will have been wasted. As Sand remarks, I do have good things to be doing other than framing DRP arguments.

    So, to return to the soapboxing thread, if there's a chance this will happen I'll be inclined not to ban. Yes, I think he should be banned, and the forum would be better for it, but I've, say, a college assignment due tomorrow and don't feel the time needed to process the ban is worth it.

    That's not to suggest I'm not dedicated to the task: I am. It's just the DRP system adds a new variable to the decision making process, and this variable tends to discourage decisive action.

    The solution is to have a united moderating team who are willing to support each other, and cmods and admins who are informed about what the Politics mods and posters want, and who will thus factor that into their appeal decisions.


  • Options
    #73
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    meditraitor wrote: »
    fair enough, the proposal for one post an hour/thread may just prevent the aggresive posting styles. I would certainly put more thought into replying if this was the case.

    I just like it the way it is, it does seem I am in a minority so I would have no problems trying to adapt to a more thoughtfull and less spitfire approach that breeds aggresive posting.

    There will always be and always should be robust debate but to me, there is a lot of sides and soap boxing going on, together with stuff being brought over onto other threads.

    I was reading a political thread on AH today and tbh, I found it more insightful, well rounded and informative than similar ones on politics. It's bad when it's at that stage! No offence to AH. :o

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #74
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Whether the mods think there is a problem; how grave they think that problem is; the extent of the reform that may be neccesary to try to remedy the problem.

    Yes, grave, and killing fields respectively. Speaking personally, that is.
    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    No. As I said in my post "An appeals system is obviously neccesary, but there's no point in pretending it has no negative consequences."

    A negative aspect of the system can be illustrated with an anecdote. Suppose I see a thread with a poster soapboxing. Other posters are getting frustrated with him, and he's wrecking the thread. I think, as a moderator, that the soapboxer deserves a ban; that his temporary absence would be good for the thread and the forum generally. That view is reinforced by some of the comments here.

    However, some of my co-mods and some cmods and admins may not be as strict on soapboxing as I am. Or, at least, they might not be willing to support me fully. They might agree with the ban, but they won't go out of their way to PM the cmods or post in feedback to "endorse" the action. The ban might go to DRP. I'll have to spend about 30 minutes going through the thread to put forward my side of the case to the cmod (this is in addition to the 30 minutes I will have spent PMing the poster I banned).

    If the cmod does not share my strictness about sopaboxing, he might overturn the ban, particularly if other mods are unwilling to actively support it. If the ban is overturned, my 60 minutes spent on DRP will have been wasted. As Sand remarks, I do have good things to be doing other than framing DRP arguments.

    So, to return to the soapboxing thread, if there's a chance this will happen I'll be inclined not to ban. Yes, I think he should be banned, and the forum would be better for it, but I've, say, a college assignment due tomorrow and don't feel the time needed to process the ban is worth it.

    That's not to suggest I'm not dedicated to the task: I am. It's just the DRP system adds a new variable to the decision making process, and this variable tends to discourage decisive action.

    The solution is to have a united moderating team who are willing to support each other, and cmods and admins who are informed about what the Politics mods and posters want, and who will thus factor that into their appeal decisions.

    I agree with those points. I've been rather opposed to the DR forum since the get-go - not because I prefer not to have mod decisions challenged (after all, most of my DR time is as a CMod), but because it has hugely tilted the DR process in the direction of those posters who are a problem in the first place - the barrack-room lawyers, the obsessives, the soapboxers, and the people who absolutely cannot ever see that they might ever be in the wrong. Compared to a PM system where nobody had any reason to grandstand, it's a huge black hole for time and mental effort, and tends to prevent moderation in the grey area cases Eliot mentions.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #75
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    A problem on every board on the site is people just can't admit when they're wrong. Been guilty of it myself too.

    You see debates where people clearly know they're in the wrong and end up twisting and turning just to think they're saving face.

    I think this really comes to a head on the politics forum. And even more so in border related threads(though seeing it a lot more in gender issues recently too). Its like people think, 'well i'd better agree with everything sinn fein do, otherwise im effectively a unionist' and the vice versa scenario of people thinking 'must criticize absolutely everything sinn fein do otherwise I'm siding with the terrorists'

    So you end up with no reasonable debate and can effectively predicty whats goign to happen.

    You'd think the 'thanks' system would help this but in reality it makes it 10 times worse as the idiot will get 2/3 people thanking them and then use that as justification for prolonging the argument they want to be true.

    I'd like to see it got rid of on the politics forum if that were possible. One liner responses should also be banned.

    I don't have a solution, would just encourage people to sometimes say, 'ah right, didn't see it from that point of view before, guess i'd overlooked that'

    Regards bickering and off-topicness, thought this was a very good suggestion from yekahS http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71413481&postcount=25


  • Options
    #76
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #77
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    Would it be possible to disable the Thanks function in Politics?

    It would be helpful in cutting out circle-jerking on the forum and might prevent some problem posters being egged on to carry on with their soapboxing.

    Also the one-liner ban sounds like a promising ideal. Sarcastic or hostile one liners add little to the debate and just seem to personalize it leading to more aggressive posting.


  • Options
    #78
    liah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    Okay, I'll list everyone's suggestions so far with a pro and a con, and add in pros/cons as people contribute, if it helps to make things a little easier to follow and we can keep track of what's been mentioned and what hasn't:

    1) Remove 'thanks' function.
    -removes gang-thanking and a bit of the groupthink, can't think of a direct con

    2) Put a time limit between posts.
    -makes people consider their posts more, but that may result in people not bothering anymore

    3) Premoderate? Though that would be a nightmare.
    -allow in only well-constructed, intelligent threads, but that may result in elitism

    4) Superthreads for 'trigger' topics.
    -keeps it all to one area, leaving the rest open for everyone else, but can get over-cluttered and hard to moderate, and probably tough on the database

    5) Banning repeat instigators.
    -gets rid of the problem, but will probably result in uproar or re-reg or other mod hassle

    6) Direct Provo threads to private subforum.
    -keeps it all to one area, but prevents new people who may be interested from finding the topic

    Any other ideas and their pros/cons?


  • Options
    #79
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #80
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    I appreciate the efforts made to keep this thread from getting personal, but at this stage I have to make the point that while many posters evidently feel there is an obvious and visible set of problem posters that do not require naming, that is not necessarily the case.

    One of the problems with moderating a busy forum is that moderators get used to problem posters, and it takes a proper review of the poster's history, rather than occasional interaction, to see the wood for the trees.

    Now, I'm prepared to review the posting histories of identifiable problem posters, but I'm not prepared to review the posting histories of every forum contributor in order to identify the list in the first place, because (without access to the SQL of Boards' database) the problem is simply not manageable that way.

    So I'm going to ask people to indicate - by PM, obviously, and in confidence - who they think are the problem posters and why. Naming names will not, by itself, result in any action apart from a review of the poster's posting and infraction/ban history. I'll also review the last year's worth or so of reported posts.

    Please also indicate any posters who, while they're not actively disruptive, simply never contribute anything worthwhile. Again, no action on any particular poster is guaranteed.

    We'll discuss most of the other points raised amongst the mods. We've discussed the idea of a Soccer-style "x points and out" approach before, but for various reasons we're mostly opposed.

    I don't have an issue with taking a severe approach here - we've had the election, so I don't feel at this stage that we're under any real onus to provide a platform to those apparently incapable of using it properly.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #81
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    I still think a superthread on the various republican arguments would be ideal and tidy the forum up. Republican threads always descend into the same debates, which would be fine if it didn't scare people away. People obviously want to have these debates, so why not a superthread? Then everyones happy.


    I'm not. Why should 'republican' argument take precedence of others.

    Nobody is scared away.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Oh and just to be clear, there are excellent Republican posters who you can have a reasoned discussion with, can think of a couple straight away, same with anti Republican posters, Libertarians, Left wingers etc. etc.

    It's the sniping at each other and it has happened on this Feedback thread, that adds nothing to the board.

    It's a politics board, there should be room for Republicans/Unionist, Libertarian, Right & Left Wing etc. posters, otherwise it is pointless. There should be no need for super threads or sub boards unless one topic is taking over the forum.

    An example of that is the Irish economy sub board. It just moves a problem, eg. Public Sector bashing threads to another board and doesn't solve the quality/soap boxing issues.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #83
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    It is your opinion and nothing more that I have engaged in soap boxing, when brought to DRP the C-mod agreed that it was not soap boxing and that the ban was undeserved. If you really want to know how someone can ever get sanctioned for actual soap boxing then perhaps you should ask the C-mod in question rather than moaning about a case in which your opinion was not upheld here.


  • Options
    #84
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    liah wrote: »
    Okay, I'll list everyone's suggestions so far with a pro and a con, and add in pros/cons as people contribute, if it helps to make things a little easier to follow and we can keep track of what's been mentioned and what hasn't:

    1) Remove 'thanks' function.
    -removes gang-thanking and a bit of the groupthink, can't think of a direct con

    2) Put a time limit between posts.
    -makes people consider their posts more, but that may result in people not bothering anymore

    3) Premoderate? Though that would be a nightmare.
    -allow in only well-constructed, intelligent threads, but that may result in elitism

    4) Superthreads for 'trigger' topics.
    -keeps it all to one area, leaving the rest open for everyone else, but can get over-cluttered and hard to moderate, and probably tough on the database

    5) Banning repeat instigators.
    -gets rid of the problem, but will probably result in uproar or re-reg or other mod hassle

    6) Direct Provo threads to private subforum.
    -keeps it all to one area, but prevents new people who may be interested from finding the topic

    Any other ideas and their pros/cons?
    +1 except for number 3. Major pain in the arse for mods and like you say accusations of elitism ahoy. And you'd have to trust the mods. I would, in politics anyway, but I could think of a couple of forums where I might be more suspicious if it was premodded. Now politics mods already get the "you're biased" guff, throw in premodding and I reckon it would be mad altogether.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #85
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    liah wrote: »
    Okay, I'll list everyone's suggestions so far with a pro and a con, and add in pros/cons as people contribute, if it helps to make things a little easier to follow and we can keep track of what's been mentioned and what hasn't:

    1) Remove 'thanks' function.
    -removes gang-thanking and a bit of the groupthink, can't think of a direct con

    definitely
    liah wrote: »
    2) Put a time limit between posts.
    -makes people consider their posts more, but that may result in people not bothering anymore

    Worth a try
    liah wrote: »
    3) Premoderate? Though that would be a nightmare.
    -allow in only well-constructed, intelligent threads, but that may result in elitism

    Will result in elitism... wouldn't be in favour
    liah wrote: »

    4) Superthreads for 'trigger' topics.
    -keeps it all to one area, leaving the rest open for everyone else, but can get over-cluttered and hard to moderate, and probably tough on the database

    No wouldn't agree ,what is a trigger topic for one group may have no interest for others, difficult to moderate fairly.
    liah wrote: »
    5) Banning repeat instigators.
    -gets rid of the problem, but will probably result in uproar or re-reg or other mod hassle

    Agree- once a clear warning of intention is given
    liah wrote: »
    6) Direct Provo threads to private subforum.
    -keeps it all to one area, but prevents new people who may be interested from finding the topic

    Any other ideas and their pros/cons?

    Definitely- this removes the oxygen of publicity from those who want to insidiously keep republican views and ideals in the spotlight, wherever and whenever they can.

    Nothing against people who hold those views, but if for instance animal rights groups, anti abortion/pro abortion groups used the facilities of Boards. ie to constantly plug their point of view, there would be action in my opinion.

    Those interested in discussing these issues could then have the designated pvt forum to themselves and avoid lengthy feedback and other threads so prevalent recently.


  • Options
    #86
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    liah wrote: »
    1) Remove 'thanks' function.
    -removes gang-thanking and a bit of the groupthink, can't think of a direct con

    I can't see that making a bit of a difference either way.
    liah wrote: »
    2) Put a time limit between posts.
    -makes people consider their posts more, but that may result in people not bothering anymore

    I'd imagine the latter. You'll note the quality of many an OP is dire as well, so its hardly going to prevent that.
    liah wrote: »
    3) Premoderate? Though that would be a nightmare.
    -allow in only well-constructed, intelligent threads, but that may result in elitism

    Generally speaking thats worked along the lines of 'vetting' members. After a certain period when the member has shown they aren't a complete waste of space or header, and knows whats acceptable and not, they're 'taken off the leash' . This has some advantages, but the more cunning trouble makers just bide their time.

    liah wrote: »
    4) Superthreads for 'trigger' topics.
    -keeps it all to one area, leaving the rest open for everyone else, but can get over-cluttered and hard to moderate, and probably tough on the database

    Merging topics already happens.
    liah wrote: »
    5) Banning repeat instigators.
    -gets rid of the problem, but will probably result in uproar or re-reg or other mod hassle

    This is already policy. There are methods available to deal with re-regs, afaik.

    liah wrote: »
    6) Direct Provo threads to private subforum.
    -keeps it all to one area, but prevents new people who may be interested from finding the topic

    Apart from the difficulty in defining a "provo" thread with 100% accuracy.

    Its actually more pertinent to remember that the period 1969-1999 and the conflict therein is now 'History' and threads on incidents in that period belong in another forum.

    I might point out that not everyone in the Republican forum is a Sinn Fein voter, so if we could cut out this "provo" guff.....


  • Options
    #87
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    There are terms that should be banned from use like "beards" is for Unions.

    Provos could be considered to be one definitely if it's just levelled at a SF supporter.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #88
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    K-9 wrote: »
    There are terms that should be banned from use like "beards" is for Unions.

    Provos could be considered to be one definitely if it's just levelled at a SF supporter.

    "beards" is already banned, as is the use of "scum", "scumbag", and "teabagger". Anything use as a repetitive and mindless way of dismissing whole groups of people gets barred from use after a bit - the exceptions are the historical ones like 'blueshirts', 'stickies', 'provos'.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #89
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    K-9 wrote: »
    There are terms that should be banned from use like "beards" is for Unions.

    Provos could be considered to be one definitely if it's just levelled at a SF supporter.


    I'm indifferent to its use generally, but theres two instances of it in this thread which are innaccurate and - certainly in the case of the first - where its used with malice in mind.


  • Options
    #90
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    To put things more bluntly: it seems that the politics forum has been taken over by militant republicans, libertarians and the people that hate them (although this seems to have faded a bit since the elections), semi-literate cranks, and cute hoors. This seems to be driving the other 92% of the population away. How can this be addressed – or does it need to be addressed at all?


    Well said & very true.

    I complained several times during the election that there were SF threads popping up all over the place, at one stage there were about twelve SF threads running simultaneously in the politics forum, some of the threads with the most tennuous connections to a Political debate, the Sinn Fein threads were being churned out by the dozen on a weekly basis! Another thing I noticed was the amount of first time SF posters who seemed to be comming out of the woodwork, and now since the election most seem to have dissappeared :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Well said & very true.

    I complained several times during the election that there were SF threads popping up all over the place, at one stage there were about twelve SF threads running simultaneously in the politics forum, some of the threads with the most tennuous connections to a Political debate, the Sinn Fein threads were being churned out by the dozen on a weekly basis! Another thing I noticed was the amount of first time SF posters who seemed to be comming out of the woodwork, and now since the election most seem to have dissappeared :cool:

    I also pointed out to you at the time that no small number of those threads, and indeed the majority of posts within all of them, were anti-sf.


Advertisement