Politics.ie members discusses Boards !

Het-Field

http://www.politics.ie/media/100211-boards-ie-pro-yes-bias.html

Users on the vastly inferior website Politics.ie have been slagging off moderators on this site, and have questioned the level of debate.

Incredible, the impoverished moderating, and low brow (and intellect) nature of most p.ie posts appears to have gone over the users heads.

K-9

Het-Field wrote: »

http://www.politics.ie/media/100211-boards-ie-pro-yes-bias.html

Users on the vastly inferior website Politics.ie have been slagging off moderators on this site, and have questioned the level of debate.

Incredible, the impoverished moderating, and low brow (and intellect) nature of most p.ie posts appears to have gone over the users heads.

It is pointless at this stage.

Poltics.ie is for ranting, raving and scare mongering.

From looking at their recent feedback threads, any moderation is frowned upon and then they wonder why more moderate posters leave.

Scofflaw

And this forum is still for discussion of politics, not politics.ie.

moderately,
Scofflaw

nesf

Re-opened since my good name has been blackened and so on..


Enjoy a rare chance to rant people.

Nehaxak

Come on man, don't sink to that level. People pissing and moaning and naming posters or mods on here are probably those that have been banned in the past for being complete arseholes - so I wouldn't even waste your breath or give them any chance to see you even bothered to care about their opinions expressed elsewhere.

meglome

I was on P.ie earlier and there really didn't seem to be any point in trying to bring reality to most discussions. Any of the ones I read were just rants about Lisbon that contained little fact of any kind.

I don't agree with everyone on boards by any means but at least there are rules and everyone has to follow them.

nesf

Nehaxak wrote: »

Come on man, don't sink to that level. People pissing and moaning and naming posters or mods on here are probably those that have been banned in the past for being complete arseholes - so I wouldn't even waste your breath or give them any chance to see you even bothered to care about their opinions expressed elsewhere.

If people start breaking the rules in this thread they'll get banned, just like always. Allowing people to rant doesn't mean people will get to abuse others and such.

Nehaxak

nesf wrote: »

If people start breaking the rules in this thread they'll get banned, just like always. Allowing people to rant doesn't mean people will get to abuse others and such.

You missed the point I was making. Sleep on it man and have a think about it again but simply put, a mod shouldn't lower themselves to the level of those slinging mud from another site. Ignore them, continue as you were.
I don't see the need to even recognise the abuse any further, especially given an Admin on here has posted on this matter recently and steadfastly defended both boards and the mods in this particular forum. That's it, let it be, forget about it, there's nothing to defend.
If they had the balls they'd argue about it in feedback (or helpdesk, whichever one allows debate these days) rather than talk crap on another forum.
Your choice and all man but I just don't see the point in bothering.

jmcc

The mistake that some Boardsies make is in considering that Politics.ie is the same as Boards.ie and vice versa. Politics.ie tends to be far more freewheeling in its discussions and there is considerably less moderation. I've often found that political threads on Boards.ie tend more towards the level of a college debating society and threads on Politics.ie tend more towards a chat in a pub. This educational video should be of use to some Boardsies as an introduction to Politics.ie:

YouTube - Argument Clinic


Regards...jmcc

Amalgam

Talk down to us jmcc, why don't you..?

The lack of moderation has worked against P.ie in the last year, in particular, the forums are constipated when it comes to discussion of the North and history surrounding that, parties associated with that 'aspect' of Ireland have more or less got P.ie in a neck hold. It really is painful trying to wade through page after page of heavily ingrained rhetoric.

The recent suspension of new member sign ups does not indicate a website in good health.

If C

---

ne can't handle things, he should get himself a nice little blog and ditch the forum, he'd be free to spin and defecate to his heart's content.

Oh and members like 'dot' being treated like **** doesn't help.

jmcc

Amalgam wrote: »

Talk down to us jmcc, why don't you..?

Well some people make it so easy.

The lack of moderation has worked against P.ie in the last year, in particular, the forums are constipated when it comes to discussion of the North and history surrounding that, parties associated with that 'aspect' of Ireland have more or less got P.ie in a neck hold. It really is painful trying to wade through page after page of heavily ingrained rhetoric.

Highly emotive subjects stir emotions and that results in strongly expressed views. The quality of moderation declined around the time of the first Lisbon referendum and some problems that could easily have been taken care of at an early stage were left to develop. Politics.ie does not have an organised moderation system like Boards.ie. It is not a highly structured environment and it is this culture shock that many Boardsies find hard to understand. If you get into a dogfight on Politics.ie, the chance of a moderator intervening to save you is almost nil.

The recent suspension of new member sign ups does not indicate a website in good health.

Apparently that was due to David Cochrane being on holidays but the block has been removed now. There's also been an increase in propaganda clones that seek to promote particular parties and political viewpoints. Politics.ie is not Boards.ie. That has some advantages and some disadvantages.

Regards...jmcc

O'Morris

An good point made by Freeborn John about the poll on this forum:

Freeborn John wrote:

They need to add another option to that poll; "Was No, Now banned".

ei.sdraob

Thats what one gets for not reading and following the forum charter @O'Morris and ignoring multiple warnings

i myself despite being on YES side got in trouble a few times here, lesson learned, thats more than can be said of FreebornJohn who seriously went over the top a few time, im actually surprised at the patience of the members here when it comes to members like this

the moderators do follow the charter to the line and thats their job and they are respected for it

its disturbing seeing people like that as trying to spin their ban as some sort of a conspiracy theory and make it out to be another reason to vote NO, sad very sad state of the NO campaign if they are unable to participate in a debate

Users on the vastly inferior website Politics.ie have been slagging off moderators on this site, and have questioned the level of debate.

right so, get the pitchforks!

sceptre

I've no interest in getting into a slagging match with people on the Internet. Even scratching my toenails would be a more useful thing to be doing. What goes on over there is their own business. I have an account on that particular site, I believe I've posted using it twice. I don't particularly care if a number of people want to insult me, this forum or this site - I've worked in the past as a sysadmin, part-time barman and a college newspaper editor so it would be difficult (albeit not impossible) for someone to throw an insult I haven't already received at one time or other. They do things their way, we do things ours. Anyone who sees a conspiracy in the way we do things is being rather myopic and self-serving.

As I posted last night:

sceptre wrote: »

We're anti-idiocy and that's pretty much the ethos as short as anyone can put it.

As moderators, we don't have a political agenda to grind, we preserve honest discussion in a reasonable manner and we're not owned by any political interest either and we're especially not associated with nor owned by any grouping with an interest in driving a particular result to the Lisbon treaty vote, past or present. Some people don't like the fact that the forum is tightly moderated (as it always has been) to preserve that reasonable discussion between people where truth is paramount and deceit is stamped on. That's fine, there are other places on the Internet for them to peddle their points of view in whatever manner is deemed acceptable in those places. As long as people discuss their views in a reasoned non-abusive manner, absent of blatant lies, with our moderator hats on none of us care which side of this or any discussion anyone is on.

Oh and I haven't offered a view on the Treaty at any point. That's deliberate. Obviously I have one. Because I've read it and I understand it. I'm fervently anti-idiocy. That's to keep this place as a zone where people like all of us can have reasoned political discussion on a variety of matters without being shouted down by people with more time than sense. Obviously moderators have their own views on things but it doesn't colour how they moderate the threads or posts. There are those who think it isn't so but put bluntly, they're the people who break the rules and then think they're being oppressed because of their views.

I'm not discussing politics.ie - that's a site owned by someone else and they can do what they want there. If they have a Feedback or Help Desk section there, than that's a good place to discuss it. Hence, Scofflaw has closed the thread - this isn't the place.

As for here, it's open to all views as long as they're backed up. That's always been the case and always will be. If anyone needs any clarification on that, feel free to start a thread in the Help Desk (if you've got a complaint), Feedback (if you want a reasoned discussion) or by sending me a PM. But anyone who thinks there's a particular view (on any topic) being pushed here in moderation doesn't know anything about the way we do business. With regard to our anti-idiocy ethos, as I've said before, we can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. The anti-idiocy is non-negotiable. And while you might not have thought about it, that's the feature that keeps people who are interested in discussing rather than peddling coming back. That's the contract we have with you guys. Safer than a bank, particularly lately.

/end semi-soliloquy

We've had a small few groupings in the past who reckoned they were being persecuted. I can only conclude they like thinking that, as it's never crossed our minds to persecute them. Oh, except for the Stormfront kiddies, they're just plain not welcome here under any circumstances (see anti-idiocy opener above).

edit: oh and if anyone really thinks nesf reopened this thread merely because his "name was blackened" (I doubt there are any of you out there) ... you need to turn on your humour detector:)

Anyhoo, that's intended as a thread point, not a thread closer.

oscarBravo

This really doesn't belong in the EU forum.

nesf

sceptre wrote: »

edit: oh and if anyone really thinks nesf reopened this thread merely because his "name was blackened" (I doubt there are any of you out there) ... you need to turn on your humour detector:)

Indeed, but people's sarcasm detectors seem to be malfunctioning.

nesf

Nehaxak wrote: »

You missed the point I was making. Sleep on it man and have a think about it again but simply put, a mod shouldn't lower themselves to the level of those slinging mud from another site. Ignore them, continue as you were.

You miss my point in reopening the thread, this thread wouldn't descend into the kind of abusive mud slinging that we can see on the p.ie thread.

Time Magazine

Nesf, you must be heart-broken. There there, buddy.

You know there's a very important general lesson for Boards here. I have no doubt whatsoever that the reason boards.ie is so much smaller than media goliaths like politics.ie is because this site has such terrible moderation. Is it any wonder that we're losing numbers every year?

Until boards.ie changes to the politics.ie way of life, boards.ie will remain a novelty forum on the margins of the Irish internet life.

Économiste Monétaire

Someone from that site stole two of my graphs! (Used without attributing the source.) Man the barricades!

DavidCochrane

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Someone from that site stole two of my graphs! (Used without attributing the source.) Man the barricades!

If there's an attribution issue, ping me an email - david@politics.ie and I'll ensure you get credit for your work.

Secondly, I'm surprised the mods here don't see fit to change the subject line/topic of this thread to make it more accurate. The website didn't insult boards.ie - a user (or number of users) acting independently, expressed a view (that's what fora are for) - that's not a site-on-site attack or anything like that.

Just thought I'd point that out, lest the mods here be accused later on of perpetuating any perceived prejudice (where none genuinely exists).

oscarBravo

Fair point, David - I probably should have edited the title before moving the thread.

DavidCochrane

No worries, I'm a huge fan of Boards.ie - and until recently posted under a pseudonym, but decided to kill him off and use my actual name.

nesf

DavidCochrane wrote: »

The website didn't insult boards.ie - a user (or number of users) acting independently, expressed a view (that's what fora are for) - that's not a site-on-site attack or anything like that.

Indeed, though I'd be worried about the sanity of anyone who thought that thread on politics.ie was officially sanctioned in any way.

DavidCochrane

Well it's a thread on this website nesf, and you're a mod in Politics (right?) - so happy to point something out lest your members be misled.

Darragh

DavidCochrane wrote: »

If there's an attribution issue, ping me an email - david@politics.ie and I'll ensure you get credit for your work.

Secondly, I'm surprised the mods here don't see fit to change the subject line/topic of this thread to make it more accurate. The website didn't insult boards.ie - a user (or number of users) acting independently, expressed a view (that's what fora are for) - that's not a site-on-site attack or anything like that.

Just thought I'd point that out, lest the mods here be accused later on of perpetuating any perceived prejudice (where none genuinely exists).

Valid point David, thank you for joining the conversation. We've changed that title now.

nesf

DavidCochrane wrote: »

Well it's a thread on this website nesf, and you're a mod in Politics (right?) - so happy to point something out lest your members be misled.

Indeed, and I agree that it was an oversight on my part and the other politics mods not to change the title.

Économiste Monétaire

DavidCochrane wrote: »

If there's an attribution issue, ping me an email - david@politics.ie and I'll ensure you get credit for your work.

Secondly, I'm surprised the mods here don't see fit to change the subject line/topic of this thread to make it more accurate. The website didn't insult boards.ie - a user (or number of users) acting independently, expressed a view (that's what fora are for) - that's not a site-on-site attack or anything like that.

Just thought I'd point that out, lest the mods here be accused later on of perpetuating any perceived prejudice (where none genuinely exists).

Don't worry, my post was made in jest. The post I'm referring to is here. The graphs are used to support a point that's, well, wrong... :pac:

DavidCochrane

No worries, I mean take for example the op

Het-Field wrote: »

http://www.politics.ie/media/100211-boards-ie-pro-yes-bias.html

Users on the vastly inferior website Politics.ie have been slagging off moderators on this site, and have questioned the level of debate.

Incredible, the impoverished moderating, and low brow (and intellect) nature of most p.ie posts appears to have gone over the users heads.

I don't think Boards.ie has called Politics.ie inferior., nor do I think Boards.ie has called my moderating "impoverised" or referred to the user base of 300,000 readers monthly as "low brow", a user has, and they're entitled to their opinion, and others are entitled to agree.

I genuinely think there's space for both. Politics.ie has evolved over the past six years, and it serves a specific niche. Boards.ie is *massive* and serves every interest (and if it doesn't, there are means to suggest how it can).

There's room for both, and the fact they both operate differently (even in terms of moderation policies) ensures they remain unique. I personally think that plurality is a good thing. I've worked hard in the past to protect and defend P.ie - so I've developed a bit of a thick skin.

ANYWAYS, thanks for the welcome, and I hope my contributions are of use/interest.

Orion

lulz: "Thaedadyl is an uber-feminist, pro-abortion nazi". She might even take that as a complement*

*well apart from the nazi part ofc

uriah

Het-Field wrote: »

http://www.politics.ie/media/100211-boards-ie-pro-yes-bias.html

Users on the vastly inferior website Politics.ie have been slagging off moderators on this site, and have questioned the level of debate.

Incredible, the impoverished moderating, and low brow (and intellect) nature of most p.ie posts appears to have gone over the users heads.

As a user of both i would think this is the inferior site - rather like the tabloid version. And the moderation here is dreadful - little hitlers throwing their (very limited) weight around.

This posting should see me banned - or at least warned.
boards.ie doesn't take criticism.

mike65

Ah ye old "bait the moderator about banning so he/she will not ban me" tactic Cunning.

oscarBravo

uriah wrote: »

This posting should see me banned - or at least warned.
boards.ie doesn't take criticism.

/waits for uriah to be banned for criticism







/prepares to wait a long time

oscarBravo

mike65 wrote: »

Ah ye old "bait the moderator about banning so he/she will not ban me" tactic Cunning.

In this case, it's just a little bit pathetic. What it usually is, is transparent: the poster posts something in breach of the charter, but on one side of an issue, then follows up with "I suppose I'll be banned now for disagreeing with the moderator."

Eh, no. You'll be banned for breaking the rules, I'm afraid.

DavidCochrane

uriah wrote: »

As a user of both i would think this is the inferior site - rather like the tabloid version. And the moderation here is dreadful - little hitlers throwing their (very limited) weight around.

This posting should see me banned - or at least warned.
boards.ie doesn't take criticism.

You'd be booted of P.ie for such a stupid, ridiculous comment as well.

oscarBravo

Will we be seeing you over on the Politics section, David? We don't have enough polite, articulate "no" campaigners.

nesf

DavidCochrane wrote: »

You'd be booted of P.ie for such a stupid, ridiculous comment as well.

Yet it's fine to level abuse at others?

DavidCochrane

nesf wrote: »

Yet it's fine to level abuse at others?

Oh here we go......

nesf

DavidCochrane wrote: »

Oh here we go......

No, just curious about the rational behind allowing it rather than anything else. How does it add to the discussion?

DavidCochrane

oscarBravo wrote: »

Will we be seeing you over on the Politics section, David? We don't have enough polite, articulate "no" campaigners.

I'm in favour of a Yes, I had thousands of posters put up on lamp-posts which said "Keep our commissioner".

Job done ...... if we vote Yes.

DavidCochrane

nesf wrote: »

No, just curious about the rational behind allowing it rather than anything else. How does it add to the discussion?

No, I'm not going to have people on boards.ie (mods especially) expect me to defend anything that happens over on my website.

And any suggestion otherwise is petty and pathetic.

I'm here as DavidCochrane.

oscarBravo

DavidCochrane wrote: »

I'm in favour of a Yes, I had thousands of posters put up on lamp-posts which said "Keep our commissioner".

Job done ...... if we vote Yes.

I actually completely forgot about that.

uriah

DavidCochrane wrote: »

You'd be booted of P.ie for such a stupid, ridiculous comment as well.

Ingratiating yourself?

It is my honestly held opinion, based on my experience.

Am I entitled to express it?

nesf

DavidCochrane wrote: »

No, I'm not going to have people on boards.ie (mods especially) expect me to defend anything that happens over on my website.

And any suggestion otherwise is petty and pathetic.

I'm here as DavidCochrane.

My apologies, I wasn't interested in hearing you defend that thread, it was a simple rant etc.


What I'm curious about is the fundamental difference in moderating ethos between the two sites and why you chose that particular ethos.

oscarBravo

uriah wrote: »

It is my honestly held opinion, based on my experience.

Am I entitled to express it?

Yes. You're not entitled to have it respected, though.

oscarBravo

So David, will we be seeing you over in the Politics section? We could do with another polite, articulate "yes" campaigner.

hullaballoo

uriah wrote: »

As a user of both i would think this is the inferior site - rather like the tabloid version. And the moderation here is dreadful - little hitlers throwing their (very limited) weight around.

This posting should see me banned - or at least warned.
boards.ie doesn't take criticism.

In the words of a great man:

*krrrhk* Anytime.... </predator>

sceptre

Right guys, time to close this.

I can completely understand that the denizens of politics.ie have their views on boards and the politics section of it, especially those with strong views on that referendum we have coming up. But we're not in the business of dissing another Internet forum. In the same way that we take a strong view against personal abuse of any kind here and we have a number of rules that need to be heeded (that being the way this site is run, including the Politics forum), politics.ie is a separate site run with its own rules. We have our ethos, they have theirs. The simple explanation of the ethos under which we run the boards.ie politics forum can be found by referring to the politics charter, as well as the post of mine I quoted on page one of this thread.

We're not interested in a slagging match and that's why the thread is being closed. The world's big enough for both and as I said above, we do things our way and they do things their way. I'd rather that this site wasn't dissed either but again, we do things our way and they do things theirs. Still enough room for two.