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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

A&A Feedback

1…2021232526…37

Comments

  • #1102
    legspin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    Cula bula. Like I said, just curious.
    Thank you.


  • #1103
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    This has just been bothering me the last few days,

    Can we rename the cat this forum is in?
    As we know it currently states " Religion & Spirituality" but Atheism isn't a religion and certainly for me its not Spiritual. This makes it misleading for people.

    Could the cat be perhaos renamed Non-Religion/Religion & Spirituality,
    I feel this is fair and balanced, and as we know from some very vocal Catholics lately....balance is important ;)


  • #1104
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Aren't atheism and agnosticism defined by their relationship to religion and spirituality?

    Atheist related stuff always falls into similar categories when searching for podcasts, blogs etc. I really don't believe people are mislead, or have difficulty finding the forum.


  • #1105
    Cynthia Little Appendix
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Cynthia Little Appendix


    Dades wrote: »
    Aren't atheism and agnosticism defined by their relationship to religion and spirituality?

    Atheist related stuff always falls into similar categories when searching for podcasts, blogs etc. I really don't believe people are mislead, or have difficulty finding the forum.

    Would a "Silence Appreciation" forum be a sub-category of the Music forum though?

    The 'problem' is that by definition it does not fit in the category it is assigned, but it is most aptly associated with the category as the complement of it.

    complement.png


  • #1106
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Dades wrote: »
    Aren't atheism and agnosticism defined by their relationship to religion and spirituality?

    Atheist related stuff always falls into similar categories when searching for podcasts, blogs etc. I really don't believe people are mislead, or have difficulty finding the forum.

    I wasn't suggesting people are having trouble locating the forum,
    However, now that you say it including "non-religion or non-belief / religion & spirituality" would I believe make it clear what the cat covers.

    The cat title is slightly misleading in that in allows religious people to reenforce their belief that atheism is a type of religion or belief system, this is damaging and we've seen in this forum and other sites that many religious people incorrectly believe this.


  • #1107
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,807 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    On the other hand it is first in the cat and therefore the most important. You never know it might catch someone on their way down to religion.


  • #1108
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    looksee wrote: »
    On the other hand it is first in the cat and therefore the most important. You never know it might catch someone on their way down to religion.

    Thats true,
    But I just think changing the cat to something like
    "Non-belief, Religion & Spirituality" properly describes the forums in the cat,

    Atheism obviously has "links" to religion in that its the opposite of a faith so its good its with the other forums, but i just feel the current cat name is misleading for the Atheist part of this forum.


  • #1109
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,549 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    This was discussed fairly recently

    Scrap the cap!



  • #1110
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    I didn't know we had a cat.


  • Advertisement
  • #1111
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,549 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    More than one. The mods herd them, apparently.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #1112
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    More than one. The mods herd them, apparently.

    They go great with pineapple on a pizza. It's called the A&A Special.


  • #1113
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,549 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Cats on pizzas? whatever happened to traditional baby-atein' values?

    Scrap the cap!



  • #1114
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Cats on pizzas? whatever happened to traditional baby-atein' values?

    Social revolution shat on the good old traditions.


  • #1115
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    I think it's well past time Absalom was banned from the Abortion Discussion thread, his constant strawmanning and misrepresentation is as bad as what got JC confined to the creationism thread here.

    There is no discussion left in the thread, just Absalom repeating non arguments ad nauseum and people refuting his non arguments in the vain hope that they'll stop. Well unfortunately, they won't.


  • #1116
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    I think it's well past time Absalom was banned from the Abortion Discussion thread, his constant strawmanning and misrepresentation is as bad as what got JC confined to the creationism thread here.
    There is no discussion left in the thread, just Absalom repeating non arguments ad nauseum and people refuting his non arguments in the vain hope that they'll stop. Well unfortunately, they won't.
    I disagree :)
    If there's ever been a point I made that you felt was strawmanning or misrepresentation, you've never questioned it, though I would have been happy to discuss it.
    In fact, on the occasion you did engage with anything I posted you abandoned the discussion pretty much as soon as I pointed out that you were misrepresenting what I'd said...
    Come to think of it, any time I have ever engaged with a point you've offered, you haven't ever backed it up.
    Yet you've been happy enough to discuss me on the thread.... but the title isn't Absolam Discussion, is it?

    In defense of my own posts, my discussion has largely been confined to points raised in relation to abortion, unlike, for instance, posters discussing other posters. Or even favourite tv dramas.

    Of course, you may well have been taking the high ground and not lowering yourself to discuss non arguments, strawmanning and misrepresentation, and certainly you haven't actually discussed abortion in the last few months on the thread at all; a few digs at posters and some snarks at pro choicers in general is about the sum of it. Which on reflection, isn't really high ground at all.


  • Advertisement
  • #1117
    Cynthia Little Appendix
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Cynthia Little Appendix


    How about a name change to Phil E Buster instead?


  • #1118
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    I think it's well past time Absalom was banned from the Abortion Discussion thread, his constant strawmanning and misrepresentation is as bad as what got JC confined to the creationism thread here.

    There is no discussion left in the thread, just Absalom repeating non arguments ad nauseum and people refuting his non arguments in the vain hope that they'll stop. Well unfortunately, they won't.

    To be honest , running to the Feedback Thread asking for a user to be banned from a discussion is like running to Teacher. Poor form.


  • #1119
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Yes, jank would have no motive for defending posters being allowed to kill discussions, through posting constant strawmen and misrepresentations - this really is about some sense of 'honour'.


  • #1120
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,807 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Discussions in A&A have become rather pointless at this stage. I have no problem with robust discussion, and I like the idea that posters are free to challenge A&A thinking. However it does need a bit of supervision.

    There are posters who are simply trolling - they are not believers but are arguing as if they were. There are posters who may well be believers but continually persist in talking about 'atheist beliefs', as though they somehow compare with religious beliefs. Three threads have now been started on the subject of schooling in Ireland and they have all been derailed with soapboxing and trolling.

    This forum does not have the limitations imposed by other religious forums (that belief can not be continually called into question), and I have no problem with that. However I do think there should now be some limitation on the persistent 'accusations' against atheism in this forum, that make discussion impossible.

    If religious people cannot get their heads round the ideas that there is no such thing as 'atheist dogma' and 'atheist beliefs', and that atheists do not want to ban religion, only to remove religious obligation and privilege from their own lives, then they should be warned then sanctioned, if only to allow discussion to progress.


  • #1121
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    looksee wrote: »
    Discussions in A&A have become rather pointless at this stage. I have no problem with robust discussion, and I like the idea that posters are free to challenge A&A thinking. However it does need a bit of supervision.

    There are posters who are simply trolling - they are not believers but are arguing as if they were. There are posters who may well be believers but continually persist in talking about 'atheist beliefs', as though they somehow compare with religious beliefs. Three threads have now been started on the subject of schooling in Ireland and they have all been derailed with soapboxing and trolling.

    This forum does not have the limitations imposed by other religious forums (that belief can not be continually called into question), and I have no problem with that. However I do think there should now be some limitation on the persistent 'accusations' against atheism in this forum, that make discussion impossible.

    If religious people cannot get their heads round the ideas that there is no such thing as 'atheist dogma' and 'atheist beliefs', and that atheists do not want to ban religion, only to remove religious obligation and privilege from their own lives, then they should be warned then sanctioned, if only to allow discussion to progress.

    I think the challenges are good, for reasons that have been stated many times. But I do agree that sometimes it gets out of hand.

    I think the bigger problem, to be honest, is certain posters that bog discussions down in stupidly pedantic arguments. People need to be accurate in what they say, and a degree of correction is perfect correct and appropriate, but there is a perception that certain posters take this too far, to the extent that the threads and discussion are actually disrupted or even ruined completely. We saw this in the abortion thread, though it does seem to have recovered.

    The soap boxing, I agree, is extremely irritating, and I would like that to be dealt with in a more vigorous manner. Realistically, by the time we have gone round a couple of times, and it is clear the soapboxes is ignoring anything being said, perhaps something should be done.

    All that said, I think we should be careful. I like the may things are run here. I like the way, unlike in the christianity forum, and even more so the islam forum, people are allowed to challenge and the mods don't protect us from nasty people telling us we are stupid to be atheists. I absolutely would not want this forum to go the same way as those other forums, molly cuddling and protecting us from nasty people saying hurtful things. That is one of the best things about this forums.

    So, in summary, keep things largely as they are, but if someone is soapboxing and clearly ignoring people'e responses, then maybe do something about it. Oh, and maybe step in on the really pedantic arguments, particularly those that seem to be simply used to shut down discussion.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #1122
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,807 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I think the challenges are good, for reasons that have been stated many times. But I do agree that sometimes it gets out of hand.

    I think the bigger problem, to be honest, is certain posters that bog discussions down in stupidly pedantic arguments. People need to be accurate in what they say, and a degree of correction is perfect correct and appropriate, but there is a perception that certain posters take this too far, to the extent that the threads and discussion are actually disrupted or even ruined completely. We saw this in the abortion thread, though it does seem to have recovered.

    The soap boxing, I agree, is extremely irritating, and I would like that to be dealt with in a more vigorous manner. Realistically, by the time we have gone round a couple of times, and it is clear the soapboxes is ignoring anything being said, perhaps something should be done.

    All that said, I think we should be careful. I like the may things are run here. I like the way, unlike in the christianity forum, and even more so the islam forum, people are allowed to challenge and the mods don't protect us from nasty people telling us we are stupid to be atheists. I absolutely would not want this forum to go the same way as those other forums, molly cuddling and protecting us from nasty people saying hurtful things. That is one of the best things about this forums.

    So, in summary, keep things largely as they are, but if someone is soapboxing and clearly ignoring people'e responses, then maybe do something about it. Oh, and maybe step in on the really pedantic arguments, particularly those that seem to be simply used to shut down discussion.

    MrP

    I completely agree MrP, I think we are saying exactly the same thing. I do not wish to see the forum over protected, I am happy to discuss anything, but it is difficult to have any sort of discussion at all at the moment.


  • #1123
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    looksee wrote: »
    I completely agree MrP, I think we are saying exactly the same thing. I do not wish to see the forum over protected, I am happy to discuss anything, but it is difficult to have any sort of discussion at all at the moment.

    Yeah. It seems to be kind of cyclical though. We have been here before, and then it settles down.

    MrP


  • #1124
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,549 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    looksee wrote: »
    I completely agree MrP, I think we are saying exactly the same thing. I do not wish to see the forum over protected, I am happy to discuss anything, but it is difficult to have any sort of discussion at all at the moment.

    Saying that atheists or anyone else unhappy (with very good reason) with our current highly flawed education system should either avoid having kids or emigrate is not worthwhile discussion, it is juvenile trolling nonsense and far below the standard this (or any other) boards forum has a right to expect.

    No action has been taken on reported posts.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #1125
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Saying that atheists or anyone else unhappy (with very good reason) with our current highly flawed education system should either avoid having kids or emigrate is not worthwhile discussion, it is juvenile trolling nonsense and far below the standard this (or any other) boards forum has a right to expect.

    No action has been taken on reported posts.

    And as for mary63... I love the broad range of views we get here, but that is just nasty.

    MrP


  • #1126
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    What is this forums policy on posting video and images in a thread?

    I looked at the charter and there is a mention of an A&A Related Video Thread but it seems to be purely related to the questions of a deity, atheism, talks in general while the motivation is to stop people creating new threads for each interesting video they find. Nothing has been posted there for a good 7 months.

    There is no specific rule there mentioning that you are not allowed to post videos or images elsewhere while discussing a topic. Which is why I am confused that I get pulled up here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99949480&postcount=2608 when I posted a video to supplement my post.

    I thought I was doing my post a favor as I mentioned a viral video that was trending worldwide a few weeks ago. When I finished my post I went off and found the video I mentioned so that people on boards wouldn't have to go off and look for it themselves. So I edited my post with the link. Is this against the rules?

    A quick browse in other threads you will quickly see many other posters posts images and videos, which gave me, perhaps wrongly, the impression, that posting these was OK.

    I'm OK with a no video or image policy if that is what the mods want by the way. Does it differ on the thread or is there some unwritten rule or understanding? Some clarity would be nice to avoid future confusion.


  • #1127
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,290 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I think the point the mod was making was that it's generally not enough to post a 13 min video to illustrate your point during a discussion, as you're then forcing the people engaged in discussion with you to watch a 13 min video (which many might not be able to do).

    You're generally supposed to make your own points and voice your own opinion in addition to posting a video.

    It's an unwritten rule more than anything else because there would be no one-size-fits-all rule for such a thing. Generally though, if you're in the middle of a discussion, you can use videos to help back up a point you're making, but you can't just post a video without adding to the discussion yourself with your own opinion.


  • #1128
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    So I edited my post with the link. Is this against the rules?
    Posting a video link can illustrate a point more clearly than a thousand words can. But it's best if you can mention which part of the video is supposed to be explaining what point you're making. On a busy day, A+A can host several hundred posts and people simply don't have time to view videos which are ~fifteen minutes long. 30 seconds - yes, but anything longer and it really should be accompanied by some guide as to what the video contains.

    Think of posting a link to a long video in the same way as pushing a large book across the table to somebody you're speaking with - a little guidance goes a long way.


  • #1129
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Penn wrote: »
    I think the point the mod was making was that it's generally not enough to post a 13 min video to illustrate your point during a discussion, as you're then forcing the people engaged in discussion with you to watch a 13 min video (which many might not be able to do).

    You're generally supposed to make your own points and voice your own opinion in addition to posting a video.

    It's an unwritten rule more than anything else because there would be no one-size-fits-all rule for such a thing. Generally though, if you're in the middle of a discussion, you can use videos to help back up a point you're making, but you can't just post a video without adding to the discussion yourself with your own opinion.

    Thanks for the reply.

    In fairness, I was not forcing anyone to watch the video to understand the point I was making in the post. The video was supplementary to the overall point I was making. Surely that was clear in the post itself in the proceeding 2 paragraphs?

    I agree with your last point. I was in middle of a discussion and posted the video to back up my point, about the honesty of said politician as the discussion veered that way. I also made points and had opinions about two other politicians.

    Your middle point again I agree with but did I not do that in this case? I voiced my opinions and points and then posted a video. If I just posted the video with nothing added then fair game but again clearly this did not happen here.

    So, in fairness it is confusing, especially when I have posted as much if not more then others who posted videos in other posts which seem to be OK.


  • #1130
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,290 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Thanks for the reply.

    In fairness, I was not forcing anyone to watch the video to understand the point I was making in the post. The video was supplementary to the overall point I was making. Surely that was clear in the post itself in the proceeding 2 paragraphs?

    I agree with your last point. I was in middle of a discussion and posted the video to back up my point, about the honesty of said politician as the discussion veered that way. I also made points and had opinions about two other politicians.

    Your middle point again I agree with but did I not do that in this case? I voiced my opinions and points and then posted a video. If I just posted the video with nothing added then fair game but again clearly this did not happen here.

    So, in fairness it is confusing, especially when I have posted as much if not more then others who posted videos in other posts which seem to be OK.

    Actually, I owe you an apology. I only saw the post you linked to which quotes you as "here is the video, only 13 minutes". I didn't see your full post where you do expand on your own opinion. In which case I apologise and therefore don't really know why a mod warning was given.


  • #1131
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Penn wrote: »
    Actually, I owe you an apology. I only saw the post you linked to which quotes you as "here is the video, only 13 minutes". I didn't see your full post where you do expand on your own opinion. In which case I apologise and therefore don't really know why a mod warning was given.

    Thanks. Its nice to see someone on the net be humble and admit an mistake. So kudus and hats off, much respect.

    Anyway, yes, I would like some clarification on it as well. Do the mods here go by the guiding principles set out in the charter or is it more ad-hoc?


  • Advertisement
  • #1132
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Do the mods here go by the guiding principles set out in the charter or is it more ad-hoc?
    Some of the forum mods post here in this thread, so feel free to to ask them whatever questions you might have directly :)

    As a general comment, the written boards.ie general charter comes first, then the written A+A charter, then it's down to keeping things as polite and friendly and discussion-oriented as they can be. Politeness isn't always first on people's lips, given the topic, but we do do our best.


  • #1133
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    robindch wrote: »
    Some of the forum mods post here in this thread, so feel free to to ask them whatever questions you might have directly :)

    As a general comment, the written boards.ie general charter comes first, then the written A+A charter, then it's down to keeping things as polite and friendly and discussion-oriented as they can be. Politeness isn't always first on people's lips, given the topic, but we do do our best.

    Thanks for the reply. Can you give me a reason why I got pulled up on the post I mentioned where by I gave a reason and an opinion on the topic of hand which the video supplemented? I did not just video dump the link.

    As the mods can see I am not the only one wondering why I got pulled up on it. Some clarity would be great. :)


  • #1134
    Bristolscale7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 541 ✭✭✭Bristolscale7


    The mods should consider adopting a policy on sh*tposting (which is different from trolling).


  • #1135
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Bristolscale7 wrote: »
    The mods should consider adopting a policy on sh*tposting (which is different from trolling).

    How is that defined and can you give me an example?

    MrP


  • #1136
    Bristolscale7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 541 ✭✭✭Bristolscale7


    MrPudding wrote: »
    How is that defined and can you give me an example?

    MrP

    The general definition is:
    1: The failure to make a constructive post
    2: The inability to add useful information to a forum
    3: Worthless overly offensive generally racists posts written in a manner which aggravates others.

    #3 is above is not tolerated here, but #1 and #2 are widespread.


  • #1137
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Bristolscale7 wrote: »
    The general definition is:


    #3 is above is not tolerated here, but #1 and #2 are widespread.
    OK, thank you. 1 and 2 appear to be endemic in some poster's posts, though I would suggest most, myself included, would be guilty on occasion.

    MrP


  • #1138
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    MrPudding wrote: »
    OK, thank you. 1 and 2 appear to be endemic in some poster's posts, though I would suggest most, myself included, would be guilty on occasion.

    MrP

    Yep, as an Irish discussion forum a bit of blather is to be expected, tend to get a bit long winded by times myself.


  • #1139
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Bristolscale7 wrote: »
    #3 is above is not tolerated here, but #1 and #2 are widespread.
    Can't disagree - the charter does prohibit soapboxing and some posters have been repreimanded under that, but it can be a hard call to make and it's something that the forum readership can help with - if some poster is being excessively longwinded and useless on an ongoing basis, then please report a post that's an example of it - even if the post doesn't contravene the charter precisely.


  • #1140
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,549 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I see the Most (faux)Outraged Papists Ever have succeeded in their aim of having yet another discussion on this forum shut down.

    Scrap the cap!



  • Advertisement
  • #1141
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    I see the Most (faux)Outraged Papists Ever have succeeded in their aim of having yet another discussion on this forum shut down.

    If a discussion is going poorly the nuclear option is closing the thread. Targeted strikes on those undermining discussion would seem more apt.


  • #1142
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mod:

    Ladies and gents -

    There have been a number of complaints regarding Absolam's posting style, specifically, that over the longer term, it's indistinguishable from trolling.

    While this is a hard call to make, your friendly mods have decided to take action on this by requesting Absolam to restrict his/her posts to the abortion thread here while a longer term solution is found. Ideally, this solution will involve Absolam returning his/her posts to the standard of which he/she is well capable.

    If that's not done, then we'll be in touch again shortly with a long-term decision.

    Thanking youze.


  • #1143
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Ooops, a little birdie reminded me this morning that in previous cases where posters have been asked to restrict themselves to a single thread, that thread has been the creationism thread which lives here:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056883606

    Seems fairest to stick with existing precedent, so all of Absolam's posts and responses from anybody who wants to discuss with him/her, can can continue to do so there.


  • #1144
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Following a non-binding three month break, the extended mod team has decided to allow Absolam to post again in A+A.

    Please note that any repetition of the posting style which lead to his/her departure - notably, arguing the words and sentences while generally ignoring the actual topic of the discussion - will be dealt with promptly by your friendly moderators - firstly, by an inthread note, then a card, then bans of increasing length.


  • #1145
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Fake news at its finest [...]
    FA Hayek wrote: »
    So, what should we do with people that are unreasonable? You were quite explicit on this, unreasonable people should not be tolerated. This means one thing only.
    Investigations taking place over the last while have suggested beyond reasonable doubt that "FA Hayek" belongs to an individual who posted here in A+A from an account which was permanently banned in 2015 after the account received more than fifty cards and temporary bans.

    Boards.ie does not permit site-banned individuals from re-registering without first informing senior site moderators of who they are and receiving permission to go ahead and open a second account. Hence, as of this afternoon, the "FA Hayek" account, the recipient of five cards in the last year and a regular poster here in A+A, has also been site-banned.

    Sincere thanks to the careful and attentive forum user who first suggested that there may be a link between "FA Hayek" and the other account.


  • #1146
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ^^^ Prison thread is here.


  • Advertisement
  • #1147
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    So, after expressing political views which were similar to those of a poster who was banned in 2015, leading some to believe they were the same individual, FA Hayek has been banned.


  • #1148
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    So, after expressing political views which were similar to those of a poster who was banned in 2015, leading some to believe they were the same individual, FA Hayek has been banned.
    FYI - the double-ban of this user has nothing to do with political views, despite both FAH and the other user continually insisting that A+A specifically, and boards.ie generally, were hopelessly left-wing, liberal and so on.

    On the contrary, convincing evidence from multiple sources, evaluated by multiple senior moderators, indicated beyond any reasonable doubt that user "FA Hayek" was, in fact, the screen name of a similarly angry poster who, having received over fifty cards and bans, was site-banned in 2015.

    If the user had been able to post in a civil fashion and engage in civil debate, then that poster would still be posting their views using their original account. Over fifty moderator actions from multiple moderators convincingly suggests that the problem lies not with the site, but with a single, angry individual.


  • #1149
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm requesting a minor change to the charter such that where a poster is using an external source to back up their line of argument they paste a link to the source, and use limited quoting of the relevant sections only rather than cutting and pasting large sections of unattributed text. This request has been prompted by two of JC's recent posts here and here, which IMHO amount to little more than spam.


  • #1150
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,807 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    smacl wrote: »
    I'm requesting a minor change to the charter such that where a poster is using an external source to back up their line of argument they paste a link to the source, and use limited quoting of the relevant sections only rather than cutting and pasting large sections of unattributed text. This request has been prompted by two of JC's recent posts here and here, which IMHO amount to little more than spam.

    Point taken, though I think this is a general Boards rule - but yes, it should be enforced.

    The only reason it was not 'jumped on' is that that thread is Origins of Specious Nonsense, and in fairness its a bit difficult to take it too seriously. We will have a look at it at Mod level, but I do think that it would be difficult to know where to draw the line in terms of of what is and is not acceptable in that particular thread.

    Provided it stays civil (and it is, remarkably so) I'd be in favour of it just continuing as it is and letting people call JC (and similarly inclined posters) out on the worst of the nonsense; he is not going to pay any attention and to ban him completely would remove what seems to be a quite popular discussion. I think you have to take the rough with the smooth!


  • #1151
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    looksee wrote: »
    I think you have to take the rough with the smooth!

    Fair enough. It was a minor quibble and I'm all for lighthearted banter within a discussion , just that that personally I find once the sound to noise ratio on a thread falls below a certain level I abandon the discussion.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement