Problems in the Politics Forum

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

metrovelvet wrote: »

So politics is going to become as over regulated as the world is now.

Are you trying to give us an example of the sort of unhelpful one-liner that people have been complaining about?

metrovelvet

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Are you trying to give us an example of the sort of unhelpful one-liner that people have been complaining about?

Yes.

Word counts. Time limits. Very leaving cert. The list is over regulated, censoring, controlling aimed to alienate most posters but about ten. How libertarian :rolleyes:.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Please be as good as to list what legitimate points I'm deflecting.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, the problem arrived at exactly post 20 -

I do think that Republicanism seems be a bit of a moral weak spot (for absolute want of a better phrase) on Boards and that sometimes things are said - or a consensus allowed to prevail - that might not neceassirly be the case where it one of, say, FF, Unionism or American military policy

Not sure exactly what I'm trying to say: it's kind of an abstruse feeling and certainly I'm not advocating a stilfing of opinion either way.

Without sounding like a tin-foil hat wearer, it's almost as if a group of people have decided to concertedly propagandize on Boards within the boundaries of permitted discussion.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71436795&postcount=20

A far from helpful contribution soon followed when issue was taken with the above....

I have to wonder, is there some kind of bat-signal that goes out the moment anyone utters the words "militant republicans" anywhere on Boards.ie?

That southsiderosie's thread, in part complaining about republicans hijacking forums for their own ends, has now been hijacked by republicans for their own ends, is more than illustrative of the problems that exist on this site.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71437519&postcount=26

And from there on in.

Of the threads which are most likely to turn into trainwrecks, those on Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin, 1916, the Irish language, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are always near the top of the list. What these all have in common is vigorous participation by the same cohort of republican posters. So, yes, I agree with P. Breathnach and others that it's an issue.

(my bold)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71471654&postcount=100

Correct, it is not confined to those posters or those threads; in fact, I have never claimed that it was. But of the posters and threads that have contributed most to the forum becoming characterized by friction and rancor, these are they.

(my bold)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71472676&postcount=104

It seems to be the consensus view that the kinds of carry-on that republican posters have (largely) gotten away with in the past is not desirable or even acceptable by the many posters who envision the forums as something other than an anarchic pitched battle.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71475888&postcount=113

I might note that I've had to omit a few posts that were made by, or refer to, somebody who is permanently banned from the politics forum for disruptive behaviour.

Permabear wrote: »

The republican posters are not to blame for every problem in the Politics forum—that very idea is another strawman. However, that they are a consistently disruptive element in the forum cannot seriously be disputed by anyone who has posted there for as long as many of us have.

(my bold)

All of them...what a bad lot.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

On the contrary, I want to make sure thats exactly what happens, without the scapegoating some parties seem to be aiming for.

Earlier you stated that I was "resorting to hyperbole to deflect legitimate points". You might be as good as to list those points?

K-9

Maybe we can focus more on what we all agree on rather than what we don't?

Soap boxing seems a definite no, no. Nobody can have a discussion or debate with somebody who just ignores or dismisses other posts and evidence.

One line, glib, personal attack responses, while fun at the time, don't really achieve much. P. Breathnach just showed an example of when it can be useful and a point well made. When it's just a personal dig at a poster it adds nothing.

Too many silly, pointless posts, probably more suitable to AH. The poster often isn't really willing to actually back them up. Probably tied in with the above point.

A group of posters monopolising debates on a few topics, rarely seen on other threads outside their speciality, single issue type posters. Nothing wrong with that either if they are adding to the topic, some it's just an axe to grind the same points over and over, never learning anything. It creates sides and the feeling of being ganged up on.

Funnily enough, reading back on this thread, it's a great example of what is wrong with the Politics forum and to be fair, it happens on other topics too.

That's a few things I can think of. I think everybody agrees something has to be done because good, genuine, well informed posters either aren't adding their knowledge and expertise, are posting less, get drowned out in the noise or have just given up.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Another point I would add and it maybe it's a more realistic option that a one post per hour rule, maybe something similar could be added to the charter, advise posters to "bite their tongue".

I've had a few personal posts thrown at me, some I've ignored, some I've replied rebutting the points, some I've responded in kind.

Continually misrepresenting somebody's position despite repeated clarifications doesn't help. Posters doing that should be warned and an on thread warning given.

I've been on threads were apparently I was a supporter of NAMA, the guarantee, FF denials of the IMF coming in etc.

2 of those came as news to me! and I don't think anybody supported NAMA!

This is were the "sides" thing comes in. You get tarred with a brush by the extremists.

K-9

Without getting personal that's an example of an agenda poster.

You ask them a simple question, looking for more information to actually further your knowledge on a topic. I don't know all the answers on economy threads and would like examples of how my thinking was proved wrong practically.

You never get an answer, just a slur on your character for asking questions!

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear, no harm to you, can you and Nodin fight over your bone another day?

Really, I amn't being smart.

There'll be room on politics after the changes for battles like this. This isn't the place for it and is becoming noise.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Funny, I could have sworn I said

I'd dispute that, as there was/is rather more 'lynch FF'/public sector threads. This isn't of course to suggest that there isn't a few deviants who would be described as republican.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71475546&postcount=111

Permabear wrote: »

The republican (..........)the outset.

I've already illustrated clearly exactly why this thread had gone the way it has in post No. 125 above. Repeating a myth will not in anyway make it true.

sceptre

This thread will be of far greater use to me and the Politics mods, and in turn everyone else who uses or wants to use the Politics forum, if people at least make an attempt to address the wider picture rather than attempt to preserve their own intentions for use of the forum where they have particular topics which are of continued personal interest. I'm not as interested in reading those posts as you might think - I already know what those views are and, personally, I actually get less sympathetic when they're also hobbyhorsed outside the forum in Feedbackland...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

Don't mean to sound flippant but do these reforms not have a serious chance of killing the politics forum as it is, in terms of traffic the forum is already pretty quiet, and unlike other forums users of the politics boards can simply migrate to a much busier website.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's been requested that it be "dropped" it by two people, but you still can't, I see. I have not, for the record and as shown, attempted to deflect anything.

Now, can we attend to the business at hand?

K-9

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Don't mean to sound flippant but do these reforms not have a serious chance of killing the politics forum as it is, in terms of traffic the forum is already pretty quiet, and unlike other forums users of the politics boards can simply migrate to a much busier website.

Well there is AH political threads if a slightly more moderated politics board isn't to a posters liking.

Nodin

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Don't mean to sound flippant but do these reforms not have a serious chance of killing the politics forum as it is, in terms of traffic the forum is already pretty quiet, and unlike other forums users of the politics boards can simply migrate to a much busier website.

There is that, but certainly - regardless of reforms - it could be cleaned up without affecting the vast majority of users, I think. I do wonder if people are using the report function, for instance.

P. Breathnach

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Don't mean to sound flippant but do these reforms not have a serious chance of killing the politics forum as it is, in terms of traffic the forum is already pretty quiet, and unlike other forums users of the politics boards can simply migrate to a much busier website.

My view is that the politics forum might become even more quiet unless some reforms are introduced. A number of intemperate people (not all of them of the one political persuasion) are spoiling things for the rest of us.

It is difficult to say what type of reform would be best. I'm not persuaded that the ideas proposed so far (summarised by liah here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71455887&postcount=78) really hit the target.

One of the problems is the poor quality of many contributions. I think we need to give a free pass to new posters finding their way, as they might be using the forum to educate themselves. But I am vexed by long-standing posters persisting with evidence-free assertion, substituting rhetoric for fact, and peddling simplistic and often insulting stereotypes (look at Public Service discussions for innumerable examples). And I am irritated by the use of silly abusive nicknames to refer to politicians (examples aplenty in FF-bashing threads). And I bored by lengthy threads that are dominantly the reprocessing of the same arguments ad nauseam (Irish language threads abound with examples).

Many threads become dominated by two people conducting an extended battle, sometimes with supporters egging them on. You don't even have to leave this thread to see what I mean.

Very occasionally I have seen a mod lock a thread on the grounds that it seems to be going nowhere. A greater willingness to take such measures might be good. Backed up with an appetite to take on ships' lawyers.

Nodin

P. Breathnach wrote: »

My view is that the politics forum might become even more quiet unless some reforms are introduced. A number of intemperate people (not all of them of the one political persuasion) are spoiling things for the rest of us.

It is difficult to say what type of reform would be best. I'm not persuaded that the ideas proposed so far (summarised by liah here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71455887&postcount=78) really hit the target.

One of the problems is the poor quality of many contributions. I think we need to give a free pass to new posters finding their way, as they might be using the forum to educate themselves. But I am vexed by long-standing posters persisting with evidence-free assertion, substituting rhetoric for fact, and peddling simplistic and often insulting stereotypes (look at Public Service discussions for innumerable examples). And I am irritated by the use of silly abusive nicknames to refer to politicians (examples aplenty in FF-bashing threads). And I bored by lengthy threads that are dominantly the reprocessing of the same arguments ad nauseam (Irish language threads abound with examples).

Many threads become dominated by two people conducting an extended battle, sometimes with supporters egging them on. You don't even have to leave this thread to see what I mean.

Very occasionally I have seen a mod lock a thread on the grounds that it seems to be going nowhere. A greater willingness to take such measures might be good. Backed up with an appetite to take on ships' lawyers.

Certainly presenting 'opinion as fact' is already covered in the Charter, as is repeating clearly incorrect information when corrected.

I do think that there should be a section inserted clearly obligating people to answer (reasonable) questions about their posts content, however. For instance if somebody refers to 'excluding certain types' from immigrating, they would be expected to clearly define what 'types' they mean .

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

Certainly presenting 'opinion as fact' is already covered in the Charter, as is repeating clearly incorrect information when corrected.

I do think that there should be a section inserted clearly obligating people to answer (reasonable) questions about their posts content, however. For instance if somebody refers to 'excluding certain types' from immigrating, they would be expected to clearly define what 'types' they mean .

I've noticed a few regular posters not answering questions asked on a few threads, I don't know if that's always the case, but it's very annoying. I'd always try and answer a question or if I can't, just say so.

metrovelvet

Maybe one of the moderators could pick a topic of the week, on the main politics board, applying some of the rules that are mentioned here, just to their weekly topic, try it out for a month or so to see how it goes, if it is worthwhile and how it needs to be tweaked.

And keep the rest of the board as is so as not to alienate a number of users.

*Also, I do think people should bear in mind that just because you don't like someone's response or lack of response doesnt mean there is anything wrong with it. Yes its nice if someone answers your question but they are not obliged to, and for all you know they might have been put on your ignore list.

southsiderosie

metrovelvet wrote: »

Maybe one of the moderators could pick a topic of the week, on the main politics board, applying some of the rules that are mentioned here, just to their weekly topic, try it out for a month or so to see how it goes, if it is worthwhile and how it needs to be tweaked.

And keep the rest of the board as is so as not to alienate a number of users.

*Also, I do think people should bear in mind that just because you don't like someone's response or lack of response doesnt mean there is anything wrong with it. Yes its nice if someone answers your question but they are not obliged to, and for all you know they might have been put on your ignore list.

The problem is, a large number of users have already been alienated by the state of the politics forum today. And I don't think the answer is for the mods to drive the content under discussion; the more important issue is controlling the parameters of the discussion.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

Maybe one of the moderators could pick a topic of the week, on the main politics board, applying some of the rules that are mentioned here, just to their weekly topic, try it out for a month or so to see how it goes, if it is worthwhile and how it needs to be tweaked.

And keep the rest of the board as is so as not to alienate a number of users.

*Also, I do think people should bear in mind that just because you don't like someone's response or lack of response doesnt mean there is anything wrong with it. Yes its nice if someone answers your question but they are not obliged to, and for all you know they might have been put on your ignore list.

I don't think people are calling for massive changes. Soap boxing is the big one because posters just get bored and put of, doesn't matter what the topic is. It is a discussion site after all.

A few seem to be taking this as an attack on their particular area of interest, I don't think it is. There's a few subjects that would benefit from it.

As for answering questions, it's a personal thing but I'd say if somebody is repeatedly not answering questions well it's a sign of soap boxing. It would be a mods call though, they could review the posters history and maybe send them a PM if they thought it was actionable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

I think a solution may be to change the GE 2011 forum to one which requires access to be granted, but can be browsed like the soccer forum. That way people can see what the desired level of posting is, and if they display that on the regular forum they get granted access.

Just an idea.

Dr Galen

Why do we still need a GE 2011 forum?

P. Breathnach

Dr Galen wrote: »

Why do we still need a GE 2011 forum?

Apparently so that some people can continue to witch-hunt the Greens. Which might be symptomatic of what is wrong in the forum.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because the budget is still in place for 2011.

The election is over.