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

A&A Feedback

1454648505162

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    in theory i agree, but there can be many different reasons for putting someone on ignore or simply breaking off engagement. they won't always be simply to ignore a point being made. how do we differentiate between all types of posters who may use the ignore function, or just simply break off engagement? some people won't use the ignore function because they see the quoted posts of the ignored poster anyway. but they would have had to break off engagement with a poster due to say, uncivil and abusive behaviour to them from the poster they have had to break off engagement with, across other parts of the site.
    there are a lot of variables involved here and how we implement something that can take them all into account i don't know. i'm not sure we even can, but maybe it is possible.

    We all know the only reason you ignore posts is because you can’t answer them honestly without exposing the contradictory positions you take on similar topics.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,928 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    Ive no idea why the moderators cannot simply, you know, moderate, and deal with this poster and their ongoing tactics in the normal manner.

    Why it has become such a convoluted process is beyond me.

    Not only is the poster succeeding in their number 1 objective, shutting down meaningful discussion, they are being provided with acres of entertainment watching people try to reason with mods as to why they should be

    moderated.


    to be fair, the moderators here do moderate when there is something to moderate. certainly there are concerns about other parts of the site but we can only really talk about here in this thread.i presume when you talk about convoluted process you mean the 2018 addition to the charter? to be fair that has been explained plenty of times as to why it was implemented as is and it does seem workable if people use it as proscribed.

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    to be fair, the moderators here do moderate when there is something to moderate. certainly there are concerns about other parts of the site but we can only really talk about here in this thread.i presume when you talk about convoluted process you mean the 2018 addition to the charter? to be fair that has been explained plenty of times as to why it was implemented as is and it does seem workable if people use it as proscribed.

    Words kind of fail me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    to be fair, the moderators here do moderate when there is something to moderate. certainly there are concerns about other parts of the site but we can only really talk about here in this thread.i presume when you talk about convoluted process you mean the 2018 addition to the charter? to be fair that has been explained plenty of times as to why it was implemented as is and it does seem workable if people use it as proscribed.

    Well then, care to back up your claims with evidence in the main thread?

    If you’re familiar with, and supportive of, the process it should be easy for you to do so.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,928 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    amcalester wrote: »
    We all know the only reason you ignore posts is because you can’t answer them honestly without exposing the contradictory positions you take on similar topics.

    that is not correct. it might be for others but not for me. if i do not respond to a post, generally it's because
    1. i just haven't got an answer other then i disagree, which i'm not sure is a good enough answer to give when i can't elaborate more on it.
    2. i feel the post is trying to engage in a line of discussion i feel may be off topic, so i do not risk engaging in it unless i am satisfied that i can actually discuss it.
    3. the post is designed to bate and similar.
    if i am ignoring the posts of a poster full stop, then it is for a very very serious reason, as in they have engaged in uncivil or worse behaviour to me on a sustained basis, or they have shown that eventually if i engage with them, they will become uncivil. i believe that is perfectly reasonable.

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    that is not correct. it might be for others but not for me. if i do not respond to a post, generally it's because
    1. i just haven't got an answer other then i disagree, which i'm not sure is a good enough answer to give when i can't elaborate more on it.
    2. i feel the post is trying to engage in a line of discussion i feel may be off topic, so i do not risk engaging in it unless i am satisfied that i can actually discuss it.
    3. the post is designed to bate and similar.
    if i am ignoring the posts of a poster full stop, then it is for a very very serious reason, as in they have engaged in uncivil or worse behaviour to me on a sustained basis, or they have shown that eventually if i engage with them, they will become uncivil. i believe that is perfectly reasonable.

    Your sustained and repeated behaviour sitewide betrays the above as untrue.

    Well over a year now I have watched you again and again engage in the same tactics of refusing to respond, refusing to substantiate claims, stating opinion as fact, taking contradictory positions, soapboxing, and essentially destroying threads with the frequency and consistency with which you post the same unsupported opinion over and over. You wallpaper threads with opinion posing as fact and then run away when your contradictions are exposed. Another favourite is to continuously claim that you said something you never said. Or that you addressed something you never address. You use the actual mechanics of a forum to engage in these tactics, knowing that it is nigh on impossible for someone to prove a negative.

    Everyone can see it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    that is not correct. it might be for others but not for me. if i do not respond to a post, generally it's because
    1. i just haven't got an answer other then i disagree, which i'm not sure is a good enough answer to give when i can't elaborate more on it.
    2. i feel the post is trying to engage in a line of discussion i feel may be off topic, so i do not risk engaging in it unless i am satisfied that i can actually discuss it.
    3. the post is designed to bate and similar.
    if i am ignoring the posts of a poster full stop, then it is for a very very serious reason, as in they have engaged in uncivil or worse behaviour to me on a sustained basis, or they have shown that eventually if i engage with them, they will become uncivil. i believe that is perfectly reasonable.

    Well that’s a load of nonsense.

    1 - why make a claim if you can’t back it up? And then why not admit that you can’t back it up?
    2 - let the mods decide if it’s OT. After all they do such a good job.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,928 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    Your sustained and repeated behaviour sitewide betrays the above as untrue.

    Well over a year now I have watched you again and again engage in the same tactics of refusing to respond, refusing to substantiate claims, stating opinion as fact, taking contradictory positions, soapboxing, and essentially destroying threads with the frequency and consistency with which you post the same unsupported opinion over and over. You wallpaper threads with opinion posing as fact and then run away when your contradictions are exposed. Another favourite is to continuously claim that you said something you never said. Or that you addressed something you never address. You use the actual mechanics of a forum to engage in these tactics, knowing that it is nigh on impossible for someone to prove a negative.

    Everyone can see it.


    this is not the case. however if you wish to hold that opinion, that is obviously your right.

    amcalester wrote: »
    Well that’s a load of nonsense.

    1 - why make a claim if you can’t back it up? And then why not admit that you can’t back it up?
    2 - let the mods decide if it’s OT. After all they do such a good job.


    i feel that it is better if possible to just not post it if i feel it may be off topic.

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    this is not the case. however if you wish to hold that opinion, that is obviously your right.





    i feel that it is better if possible to just not post it if i feel it may be off topic.

    Why post a claim if you cannot back it up or substantiate it? That’s not engaging in constructive discussion and does nothing to further any thread in a positive manner. Pretty much everyone that has engaged with you in a discussion has provided facts to substantiate their claims, via links, articles, reports, photographic evidence etc.

    I have never seen you do any of that, I have never seen you provide any proof to any statement you have ever made and any attempt to get you to do so usually results in you leaving the discussion only to return at a later date.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ....... wrote: »
    Ive no idea why the moderators cannot simply, you know, moderate, and deal with this poster and their ongoing tactics in the normal manner. Why it has become such a convoluted process is beyond me.
    For the reason which has been given before - quite a few times at this point - that both sides are using, to a greater or lesser extent, and varying according to poster, style and tone, the same debating tactics. If one side is going to be penalized for persistently using some discreditable debating tactic, then the other side must be equally penalized too.

    Neither side, IMHO, in the abortion discussion thread are debating with much clarity and neither side is showing any obvious interest in seeking out common ground with their opponents in order to build a common consensus.

    Until an idyllic time can come about when everybody discusses the issue with clarity, figures, politeness and an interest in forming a common consensus, it seems a little wiser for participants to to avoid complaining too much about others failing to engage in discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    So now trying to get posters to actually utilize the reporting procedure is a form of backseat moderation?

    I’m sorry robindch but this is absolutely farcical and this really requires a CMod to step in and look at this.

    You’ve thinly veiled mocked us before for not utilizing the reporting procedure the charter has now laid out, yet when we collectively try to use it or encourage each other to do so it’s a form of “mob” or spamming forum moderators? That is absolutely ridiculous to suggest. There is an extremely disruptive poster who is not contributing whatsoever to the topic in a constructive manner whatsoever and continues to throw out contradictory remarks and flat out refuses to engage in discussion when their false statements are challenged. The wider group of posters are trying to engage in good faith but are limited in doing so due to a certain posting style. We are trying to pursue a constructive discussion but can not do so because of this disruption.

    This has been pointed out to you numerous times robindch and each time you choose to very subtly mock us or feign ignorance that something is amiss. Time and time again we come back to this issue and time and time again you fail to address the concern that has been raised.

    If person A makes a statement it is completely upon themselves to back up their statement if challenged. If person B challenges their statement and requests evidence of person A’s claim, the onus should not be on person B to provide evidence in their counterclaim. The responsibility of supplying reasonable evidence to substantiate a claim lies solely with the individual who has made the claim initially.

    We urge you to engage a CMod for discussion on this thread as it would be unanimously agreed by the posters who have a concern, it is an issue that we need addressed and an issue we do not feel you are particular invested in resolving.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    smacl wrote: »
    If you have a poster who is basically here to soapbox rather than engage honestly, they could simply put anyone they didn't like the cut of on ignore and spam the forum on the pretext that they weren't aware of any challenges to their posts.
    Good point and a little hard to know what to do.

    Probably best for the requester, or some other poster who notices that requests to substantiate are being ignored, and to report this - it's certainly unfair that one poster can ignore requests to substantiate on the grounds that they're simply not listening to the person doing the asking.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    robindch wrote: »
    Good point and a little hard to know what to do.

    I guess at some point you just have to ask yourself is the poster's primary intention to disrupt rather than enrich the conversation, and should you feel that to be the case, treat them as a troll. If the current rules don't let you do this, that's the point at which you look at how and why those rules need changing.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for robust adversarial debate and forums would be boring as hell without it, but if you have someone who's primary intention is to frustrate the discussion using serial 'drive by' tactics to píss all over a thread, you need a mechanism to deal with it.

    We all have our various and opposing biases but if we're going to express them publicly at some point we have to be able back them up with something stronger than opinion.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    smacl wrote: »
    I guess at some point you just have to ask yourself is the poster's primary intention to disrupt rather than enrich the conversation, and should you feel that to be the case, treat them as a troll.
    As above, I find little of the discussion in the abortion thread all that enlightening - few attempts to find common ground, lots of prejudicial or slippery terminology and phraseology, posters repeating the same points and so on. And all of that happening on both sides, though to differing amounts, since there are few anti-abortion posters in A+A.

    If there was a careful, generous, consensus-driven discussion taking place in the abortion thread, then some pigeon poster arrived in and shot up the place, then yes, they'll be dealt with. However, and unfortunately, I don't see much sign of the abortion thread becoming a careful, generous, consensus-driven discussion any time soon - hence both sides are given as much liberty to discuss as they see fit, once basic civility is maintained, and allowing for unevidenced claims to be dealt with.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Fair enough, not a thread I've found that engaging of late, very possibly because it is being dragged around in circles. Anyhoo happy modding, rather you than me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,060 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    So when are the cmods going to do something about the moderation in A&A? I reported 3 posts this evening. 2 were just out and out lying. Nothing was done. Another was a post by a mod. I am not expecting anything to be one about that either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    robindch wrote: »
    As above, I find little of the discussion in the abortion thread all that enlightening - few attempts to find common ground, lots of prejudicial or slippery terminology and phraseology, posters repeating the same points and so on. And all of that happening on both sides, though to differing amounts, since there are few anti-abortion posters in A+A.

    If there was a careful, generous, consensus-driven discussion taking place in the abortion thread, then some pigeon poster arrived in and shot up the place, then yes, they'll be dealt with. However, and unfortunately, I don't see much sign of the abortion thread becoming a careful, generous, consensus-driven discussion any time soon - hence both sides are given as much liberty to discuss as they see fit, once basic civility is maintained, and allowing for unevidenced claims to be dealt with.

    See, this reads that you recognise that the poster in question is a pidgeon poster, but since there is no other discussion going on in the thread and being distrupted, then you don't care to stop them. Why is that? Why is letting such a poster roam freely better then banning them and letting the thread naturally die? The abortion thread is on its 4th iteration, thats over 30,000 posts, maybe the enlightening discussion has already happened and concluded?

    Any response to my far simply process for reporting posters as detailed here?


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    And now the thread disruptor has been given what they wanted - closing down discussion entirely.

    I can't believe what is going on and the increasingly utterly bizarre excuses being made to justify it.

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?





  • bow down to the master lads.

    most of boards was unusable when the bucko was on the rampage a few moths back

    total modding copout and id not be surprised if its an experienced user just playing chicken with the enormous gaps in the modding approach taken across the site towards this type of frustrating trolling. id say they cant believe the success theyve had.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,060 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    And now the thread disruptor has been given what they wanted - closing down entirely.

    I can't believe what is going on and the increasingly utterly bizarre excuses being made to justify it.

    Not only that but actively defending them and saying it is the fault of every other poster but the one at fault.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I would just like to point out how bizarre it was to have a mod say I claimed something I didnt, then demand I provide evidence for that claim before another poster had to post evidence for the claim they directly made.
    Then to have that repeated a few times after directly saying that I didnt hold that position and did not have any such evidence.

    Literially no idea what was happening there...


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,441 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Can I make a suggestion about eotr?

    for the sake of sanity we should all ignore him, he needs attention to live.

    Ignoring his posts means theyll get no audience in this forum, it's the constant multiquote nonsense where they know they don't have to backup any claims that keeps them here


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,348 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    We have all LITERALLY been given a time out! Farcical moderation at best.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Can I make a suggestion about eotr?

    for the sake of sanity we should all ignore him, he needs attention to live.

    Ignoring his posts means theyll get no audience in this forum, it's the constant multiquote nonsense where they know they don't have to backup any claims that keeps them here

    And what happens the next time another poster does something similar and is allowed get away with it (not like this is the first time a disruptive poster is allowed to get away with their disruption for an extended period of time on this forum)? Just en masse put them on ignore? Then this will become the forum of closed-minded group-think, that simply ignores posters they don't like. Besides this being cliche #1272 that theists like to throw at atheists (that we are just closed minded in general), it's the exactly same thing that eotr is doing. We drop to their level and then go lower, by being hypocrites about it. That is a win for them.

    We don't need to ignore eotr en masse and we shouldn't. What needs to happen is moderation, and it is not happening for some inexplicable reason.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    And now the thread disruptor has been given what they wanted - closing down discussion entirely.

    I can't believe what is going on and the increasingly utterly bizarre excuses being made to justify it.

    I first noticed this posters behaviour over a year ago now, and I am aware that the poster has been reported across the site, there have been feedback threads started, mods have been asked to moderate the ongoing behaviour, yet still they are allowed to do what they like. I have had background chats with mods about it and I know other posters have too.

    And here we are again, number 1 objective achieved, discussion shut down.

    That along with an absolutely bizarre moderator series of posts which kind of makes out that black is white, blames everyone else, and THAT on the back of the farcical procedure that is supposedly to deal with this one poster, but really is to make dealing with him more elusive, so much t crossing and I dotting expected that most people don't bother (which is the hope) and those that do are batted away on some pedantic point or other.

    I can only surmise, as I have for a long time now, that this particular poster has special protections. That it is in fact a puppet account for someone high up in distilled media ltd. Because there is no way an ordinary poster would get away with this rubbish.

    I don't anticipate a cmod doing anything constructive here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    We have all LITERALLY been given a time out! Farcical moderation at best.

    I've never understood this sort of thing, when one or two posters are seeking to prevent all useful discussion in a thread, shutting it down is just giving them what they want while punishing everyone else.

    It's soccer forum type moderation. Hit the panic button instead of thread-banning, or banning, obvious trolls.

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    Guys - to update, I have PM'ed Neyite and they have responded and are investigating this.

    Thanks Neyite.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    Guys - to update, I have PM'ed Neyite and they have responded and are investigating this.

    Thanks Neyite.

    Cheers, but I won't hold my breath about anything changing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    So is the thread going to reopen so the adults can talk or is one posters messing going to be allowed shut it down indefinitely?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    I checked back through my private messages and I have exchanges with other posters, and with various moderators going back to January 2018 over this posters behaviour. Literally the same complaints from numerous people from numerous threads for almost 18 months now.

    It's truly baffling.


Advertisement