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

Options
1…3536384041…62

Comments

  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #1113
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,111 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


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

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #1114
    Turtwig
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #1116
    Absolam
    Registered Users 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
  • Options
    #1117
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    How about a name change to Phil E Buster instead?


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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'.


  • Options
    #1120
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,139 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1121
    MrPudding
    Registered Users 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
  • Options
    #1122
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,139 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1123
    MrPudding
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #1124
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,111 ✭✭✭✭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.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #1125
    MrPudding
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #1127
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,312 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #1128
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #1130
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,312 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #1132
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 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.


  • Options
    #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. :)


  • Options
    #1134
    Bristolscale7
    Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭Bristolscale7


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


  • Options
    #1135
    MrPudding
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #1136
    Bristolscale7
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #1137
    MrPudding
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #1138
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,723 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.


  • Options
    #1139
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 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.


  • Options
    #1140
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,111 ✭✭✭✭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.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #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.


Advertisement