Problems in the Politics Forum

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I read the Budget forum as the Budget forum, not the Budget announcement forum, if the latter would be redundant. Budget 2011 is still in practise, where its announcement is long over.

FlutterinBantam

So, it's all other peoples opinions we need to present, with appropriate quotations and links from the Guardian.

We won't listen to current affairs programmes and evaluate, and have an opinion ourselves.

The old see through the rhetoric facility will not be allowed.

heh heh, I can form my own opinion man.

Dr Galen

To my mind the Budget forum and the GE2011 forum are now nothing more than places for certain posters to ride their own favourite hobby horse round and round in a circle.

A total restructure of the politics umbrella group is needed IMHO. Get rid of both those forums first. For every quality OP that either stimulates a good debate, or informs those reading it, there are plenty more of the low brow kind. The good threads and posters will be happy to post in the main forum.

Leave the US politics forum as is. I have my doubts about the EU forum tbh, a quick look at it, doesn't show a lot of recent activity. I'm thinking that while we were all caught up with Lisbon etc, this was a good idea. Now though, is there anything in it that couldn't go in the main forum

Political theory forum is grand as is. A pretty interesting and informative place in my mind. Sure, you get the circular arguments in there too sometimes, but it's an Internet discussion board, that's what happens sometimes.

I'm not in favour of posting time limits or making the forum an opt in or invitation system. That smells of elitism to me, and will exclude people. The Internet is all about inclusion and a forum like politics can be used to help educate and inform. Barring people because they don't match up to a "standard" profile isn't a good thing. I'm also quite capable of thinking about more than 1 thing every fifteen minutes, even things like politics

One last thing, and I don't mean this as a dig at anyone in particular. The modding by committee or in fear of the DRP needs to be stopped IMHO. We can all see the bollix that goes on in forum. I know time is precious and we're all volunteers as mods but a middle ground has to be reached. There are obvious **** stirrers who need taking in hand. Find them and root them out ( shouldn't be hard). If the DRP is preventing good mods from not being able to do the job, then something is wrong. Maybe even a bit more on thread direction from mods would help? Maybe that would help steer things away from the circular and boring, or the entrenched sniping which has become all too common.

K-9

I always though the Budget and GE ones were just temporary fora, seems pointless having them still open. There's a taxation and state benefits forum if people need to ask questions.

gandalf

K-9 wrote: »

I always though the Budget and GE ones were just temporary fora, seems pointless having them still open. There's a taxation and state benefits forum if people need to ask questions.

Of course they should just be temporary and at this stage the budget one should be amalgamated into the Economy forum and when the Seanad elections are completed the GE11 moved into the General Politics forum.

K-9

gandalf wrote: »

Of course they should just be temporary and at this stage the budget one should be amalgamated into the Economy forum and when the Seanad elections are completed the GE11 moved into the General Politics forum.

I'd forgot about the Seanad elections but that could have its own thread in politics at this stage.

gandalf

Dr Galen I agree with nearly everything you have said except for the idea of dismissing the time lag between posts. I think that is quite an elegant solution to hit and run type posts in threads where no thought is put into what you are trying to say. The idea of politics was to consider your post in the discussion. That idea has been lost at this stage and in a lot of threads (some on NI and some on other subjects) the discussions are lowered by tit for tat reactionary troll like posts. Whether time lag can be easily implemented I don't know but I do see the merit in it.

Rubik.

gandalf wrote: »

Dr Galen I agree with nearly everything you have said except for the idea of dismissing the time lag between posts. I think that is quite an elegant solution to hit and run type posts in threads where no thought is put into what you are trying to say. The idea of politics was to consider your post in the discussion. That idea has been lost at this stage and in a lot of threads (some on NI and some on other subjects) the discussions are lowered by tit for tat reactionary troll like posts. Whether time lag can be easily implemented I don't know but I do see the merit in it.

I don't think a time lag would necessarily change a posters inherent posting style, those who give some thought to want they are posting will continue to do so and those that don't - won't.

Sand

@Rubik

I don't think a time lag would necessary change a posters inherent posting style, those who give some thought to want they are posting will continue to do so and those that don't - won't.

The ones who dont give some thought to their posting will at least be posting less often.

I dont deny its a trade off, and might not be everyones cup of tea - and it may not even be technically possible. But if the forum is being swarmed by hit and run/tit for tat/one liners which is drowning out interesting posts and discouraging people from contributing then its a possible solution. Posters arent going to raise their game by themselves, if they were going to do so they would have done so by now.

Rubik.

Sand wrote: »

@Rubik


The ones who dont give some thought to their posting will at least be posting less often.

True, but the same could be said of those that do. I may well be wrong, but I just don't think it would make a big enough difference to merit it's introduction and I'd imagine it would be be quite frustrating at times.

Assuming it was technically possible - are you suggesting a time lag in each thread or in the forum as a whole?

Black Swan

Many suggestions have been made here regarding how the Politics forums can meet higher standards for content and discussion, while at the same time allowing for a measure of free expression. There is now a discussion thread about creating a co-existing alternative sub-forum in Politics that you may wish to review and comment upon.

Politics Cafe discussion thread link: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71545637#post71545637

Nehaxak

Scofflaw wrote: »

Compared to a PM system where nobody had any reason to grandstand, it's a huge black hole for time and mental effort, and tends to prevent moderation in the grey area cases Eliot mentions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Interesting point you make, considering you point blank refused to engage myself tonight through PM on a matter for which you banned me. All the more reason the DR forum should be there, to cut out instances of that type of carry-on and refusal by mods to explain their actions.
I would've been perfectly fine debating my point of view and explaining my post via PM but you as a mod within that forum refused to participate via PM and were dismissive in the extreme - in other words, it's your way or the highway and tough luck to anyone who dares to question. So no, I don't accept that point you made at all and the DR should be there for others to question the actions of dubious mod decisions, especially those like you who won't even engage in the first place and refuse to explain their justification for banning.

Also, I find it quiet amusing there are posters claiming there's some huge influx of Republican posters on to boards where before some of those very same posters, placated by the mods, ranted on incessantly against Republicans at every opportunity, ruining every single thread ever made by anyone in relation to anything even remotely Republican.

I think it's more a case of long time readers taking the opportunity to speak up and make their voice heard so what was once a cosy little grouping of "pats on the backs lads, we're ok to rant away in here about Republicans, sure the mods will back us up anyway" - is now a case of "whoa, wtf, bugger, I have to actually debate with people who've got sick and tired of all the crap levelled against their political ideals now ? Hold on here, this isn't right at all, why don't they all just bugger off so we can continue without anyone to question or determine our motives for same ?"

Politics forum and Boards.ie in general were widely seen as no go area's for Republicans or even moderate Nationalists for that matter due to the perception of the mods and clique of certain posters who took every opportunity to back people into corners who questioned their views, or just shout them down continually. People can only take so much without hitting a point where they simply cannot take the one sided falsehoods, misinformation, rumours and mud slinging, especially that which went on against SF in particular, in the politics forum during the election and is still continuing today.

It's funny because most of the people on this thread complaining about the turn of events are those which I have on ignore due to their past postings in certain threads on politics or AH, who in a way I could only describe as not just anti Republican but complete hatred and an almost ingrained anti Irish attitude itself but using Republicanism as a lame excuse to vent your bile.

Pity about some of you now that you have to put up with more than what was only a handful of posters in the past who bothered to counter your incessant falsehoods, trolling and flamebaiting of Republicans. I'm sure the mods will eventually take it upon themselves to balance things in favour of the old clique, so threads about Gerry Adams, SF, blah blah blah, can continue on as an almost ranting blog without anyone left to counter or input against you.

I thought this was a forum for debate not just another ranting one sided blog with singular agendas and a clique of older posters who couldn't fathom having to explain their posts to others who might disagree with them...

Overheal

The Politics forums are open to critique, but not just from Irish-Republicanism, or Northern Ireland this and EU that. This thread makes my eyes bleed, because somehow it still managed to make the problems with the Forum(s) revolve around an issue, not the system. It's not about Irish Republicanism. I could give a sh*t about your internal Irish Politics. But frankly I'd rather polish that turd and keep it for myself. Thats not the problem.

I don't post in a lot of the threads some people claim to have issue with. I still have criticisms of the joint. It's not down to one topic or political area of interest. Things like soapboxing ruin the forum for everybody. Doesn't matter if you're soapboxing about X Y or Z, and I will do my best not to make specifics.

Poster A will come out and say "That's factually incorrect." verbatim. Poster B would come on and say "How can you say that if (citation 1, citation 2, citation 3, citation 4) all say that it is in fact correct?" - at this point Poster A usually either pretends they where never asked this question by B and start talking about something else, or they will accuse poster B of being "a typical (affiliation adjective adjective adjective)".

In other cases you get Poster A making a claim (..A ferrari came to life and ate a baby. Fact!), poster B will go "I can't find proof of that anywhere, where did you hear about this?" Poster A will just go "Dude, google it, I can't be bothered to do your research for you!"

It's that kind of Poster, Poster A, that is breaking down the nature of the forums. All of them. It's been in Politics, US Politics, and hell it's even in After Hours when a political thread is allowed to continue there. I imagine it's in the other sub-forums too but I don't go there.

Its the problem of letting that style of posting carry on for the most part. Mainly because its harder to pick up on, than personal abuse or something of that nature. It actually requires the moderator to actually have some working knowledge of each problematic poster. Personally I feel I'm familiar with a handful, and if I'm familiar with a handful, I can Estimate that there are perhaps a few dozen that are skimming under the radar at any one time. It's a major workload right now for a mod to verify in each case that trolling is going on. Can't you just start issuing warning cards for that kind of baseless arguing? I don't even mind the one liners (I can even grin and bear the weak attempts at humor, being guilty of some of that action myself) as much as I mind the ones that think they are above the need for qualification.

Locked Messed Monster

Overheal wrote: »

The Politics forums are open to critique, but not just from Irish-Republicanism, or Northern Ireland this and EU that. This thread makes my eyes bleed, because somehow it still managed to make the problems with the Forum(s) revolve around an issue, not the system. It's not about Irish Republicanism. I could give a sh*t about your internal Irish Politics. But frankly I'd rather polish that turd and keep it for myself. Thats not the problem.

I don't post in a lot of the threads some people claim to have issue with. I still have criticisms of the joint. It's not down to one topic or political area of interest. Things like soapboxing ruin the forum for everybody. Doesn't matter if you're soapboxing about X Y or Z, and I will do my best not to make specifics.

Poster A will come out and say "That's factually incorrect." verbatim. Poster B would come on and say "How can you say that if (citation 1, citation 2, citation 3, citation 4) all say that it is in fact correct?" - at this point Poster A usually either pretends they where never asked this question by B and start talking about something else, or they will accuse poster B of being "a typical (affiliation adjective adjective adjective)".

In other cases you get Poster A making a claim (..A ferrari came to life and ate a baby. Fact!), poster B will go "I can't find proof of that anywhere, where did you hear about this?" Poster A will just go "Dude, google it, I can't be bothered to do your research for you!"

It's that kind of Poster, Poster A, that is breaking down the nature of the forums. All of them. It's been in Politics, US Politics, and hell it's even in After Hours when a political thread is allowed to continue there. I imagine it's in the other sub-forums too but I don't go there.

Its the problem of letting that style of posting carry on for the most part. Mainly because its harder to pick up on, than personal abuse or something of that nature. It actually requires the moderator to actually have some working knowledge of each problematic poster. Personally I feel I'm familiar with a handful, and if I'm familiar with a handful, I can Estimate that there are perhaps a few dozen that are skimming under the radar at any one time. It's a major workload right now for a mod to verify in each case that trolling is going on. Can't you just start issuing warning cards for that kind of baseless arguing? I don't even mind the one liners (I can even grin and bear the weak attempts at humor, being guilty of some of that action myself) as much as I mind the ones that think they are above the need for qualification.

You missed out poster C.

They have a thought about something, like a lot of us do but know very little about their chosen subject/debate matter other than what they read in the paper/media or whatever to form an opinion and due to the nature of the discussion and being debated with rely on goggle and wiki to learn as they argue, rather than argue what they are knowledgeable on.

Not saying that is a bad thing as everyone has to learn somewhere but they can be annoying.

Amhran Nua

Ah politics. What you have is a variety of groups with an agenda and degrees of preparation from broad agreement with regular infighting, to professional media training and militant uniformity of purpose, mixed in with Angry People and some who would not fall too far outside the category of "disturbed", and of course what could be called regular people.

This is the way it is in real life, so lets not get too surprised if a similar juxtaposition gets imposed on boards. I mean what, some discussions degenerate into a few groups of people calling one another names and arguing in circles?

Sounds like politics to me.

The best any arbitrator of these discussions can do is to gently remind the most disruptive that this is a civilised discussion forum, and that most people are trying to reach a constructive conclusion by participating. And I do respect the difficulty of the task. I don't think clenching the iron fist will do much good in terms of accurately representing the actual political landscape of Ireland, in fact the probable result will be an increasing amount of rules lawyering as groups and posters seek to gain the upper hand by manipulating the system and agreed boundaries.

Imposing more boundaries just creates more opportunity for abuse of regulation, and none are more fit for it than political groups. It's not pretty, but that's what happens in politics.

K-9

Nehaxak wrote: »

Politics forum and Boards.ie in general were widely seen as no go area's for Republicans or even moderate Nationalists for that matter due to the perception of the mods and clique of certain posters who took every opportunity to back people into corners who questioned their views, or just shout them down continually. People can only take so much without hitting a point where they simply cannot take the one sided falsehoods, misinformation, rumours and mud slinging, especially that which went on against SF in particular, in the politics forum during the election and is still continuing today.

It's funny because most of the people on this thread complaining about the turn of events are those which I have on ignore due to their past postings in certain threads on politics or AH, who in a way I could only describe as not just anti Republican but complete hatred and an almost ingrained anti Irish attitude itself but using Republicanism as a lame excuse to vent your bile.

There are plenty of Republican and Nationalist posters on the forum, plenty.

There is actually plenty of agreement on the issues, if we could ignore the sniping and the zero win mentality.

later12

I just want to say that I think the idea of a one hour time delay between posts is a terrible idea.

The principle referenced in advancing this idea was that posters would take time out to consider their point in detail. Firstly, I think this would lead to a stagnation - few posters, even legitimate posters interested in a healthy discussion, are seriously going to wait around for an hour before posting a perfectly reasonable and adequate three or four lines. If they do wait around, they will probably type a hell of a lot more than that in waffle.

Secondly, some of us to actually think about politics and economics for vast hours of the day. Maybe it is our job, maybe we contemplate these issues at length while offline, maybe we read a lot - whatever. Not everybody necessarily needs one hour to frame and express a coherent and informed opinion.

Such a move would only serve to discourage informed posters posting for the sake of informed debate and would encourage the more tenacious hard liners to cling on, in my opinion, thus aggravating the problem.

pablomakaveli

later10 wrote: »

I just want to say that I think the idea of a one hour time delay between posts is a terrible idea.

The principle referenced in advancing this idea was that posters would take time out to consider their point in detail. Firstly, I think this would lead to a stagnation - few posters, even legitimate posters interested in a healthy discussion, are seriously going to wait around for an hour before posting a perfectly reasonable and adequate three or four lines. If they do wait around, they will probably type a hell of a lot more than that in waffle.

Secondly, some of us to actually think about politics and economics for vast hours of the day. Maybe it is our job, maybe we contemplate these issues at length while offline, maybe we read a lot - whatever. Not everybody necessarily needs one hour to frame and express a coherent and informed opinion.

Such a move would only serve to discourage informed posters posting for the sake of informed debate and would encourage the more tenacious hard liners to cling on, in my opinion, thus aggravating the problem.

Maybe even cut the time back to 15-20 mins then. Enough time to prevent an ill thought out or rash reply but not long enough to stop the flow of debate.

later12

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Maybe even cut the time back to 15-20 mins then. Enough time to prevent an ill thought out or rash reply but not long enough to stop the flow of debate.

I don't know. If I had to wait 15 minutes to reply to a post I'd probably, unfortunately, write a 15 minute reply.

That isn't necessarily in the forum's best interests.

This is supposedly a plan to prevent abuse of the forum by posters who, if banned, would simply create a new account to circumvent a ban. But isn't it the case that if the poster is the type willing to go to the length of creating a second account to circumvent a ban, he's also likely to be willing to wait around simmering in his own single mindedness for 20 minutes?

Or worse - do those 20 minutes not give him ample time to create new user accounts!

Scofflaw

The idea of a time delay between posts is not one anyone need really be concerned about...

cordially,
Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam

I thought there was a time delay .

A lot of posters seem to be posting from the mid twentieth century:eek:


facetiously


Flutter

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

Locked Messed Monster wrote: »

You missed out poster C.

They have a thought about something, like a lot of us do but know very little about their chosen subject/debate matter other than what they read in the paper/media or whatever to form an opinion and due to the nature of the discussion and being debated with rely on goggle and wiki to learn as they argue, rather than argue what they are knowledgeable on.

Not saying that is a bad thing as everyone has to learn somewhere but they can be annoying.

My understanding is Politics used to be much more like what you seem to want, to me it felt like a stuffy closed shop where you were barely allowed into a discussion without a PHd in middle eastern affairs.

I don't see anything wrong with using a resource to learn. By providing sources you're still allowing anyone who happens to have a PHd, or be a Soldier, or a Lawyer, etc. to follow up with a rebuttal to what you have to say by correcting or dismantling what you have taken away from the source you gleaned the information from.

I'm aware you're referring to me, and that's what I do. You're equally as capable to refute what I have to say and I've been corrected on more than a few occasions, generally from people who handle the topics for a living or at least have been following them for years longer than I have. I don't see any problem with that as it's not a pissing match, it's a discussion about an interest in a topic that is helped best by having the best information. The thread itself can be a learning tool, keeping it much more in line with most of the other forums on the website.

later12

Overheal wrote: »

I've been corrected on more than a few occasions, generally from people who handle the topics for a living or at least have been following them for years longer than I have. I don't see any problem with that as it's not a pissing match, it's a discussion about an interest in a topic that is helped best by having the best information. The thread itself can be a learning tool, keeping it much more in line with most of the other forums on the website.

I think that's a good point. Often there is a temptation to react to what we might consider misinformed opinion in exasperation (and I include myself in that) but ultimately this is a discussion forum and not designed to simply count a concensus, it would be a pretty awful place if everyone knew the same thing and maintained agreement.

On the other extreme, there is the situation where someone deliberately doesn't even carry out a basic google or wiki search for some background reading and jumps straight in with cliches or misinformation which they may even know to be contentious at best, and that genuinely frustrates a reasonable discussion.

Wolfe Tone

Theres a very real danger of the forum becoming a very elitist forum with only four or five posters.

Scofflaw

later10 wrote: »

I think that's a good point. Often there is a temptation to react to what we might consider misinformed opinion in exasperation (and I include myself in that) but ultimately this is a discussion forum and not designed to simply count a concensus, it would be a pretty awful place if everyone knew the same thing and maintained agreement.

On the other extreme, there is the situation where someone deliberately doesn't even carry out a basic google or wiki search for some background reading and jumps straight in with cliches or misinformation which they may even know to be contentious at best, and that genuinely frustrates a reasonable discussion.

Unfortunately, from a mod point of view, either an elitist forum or a free-for-all is easiest to moderate. The former is easy because there will be a small number of posters, and discussions will move slowly - riff-raff are easily spotted and ejected - the latter is easy because it doesn't really get moderated much.

What we're trying to do is strike a balance between the value of informed discussion, and the informative value of discussion.

If posters are willing to report those who soapbox, those who refuse to accept facts, those who make up their own facts, and those who, having made a claim, refuse to either provide sources or drop the claim, then our job becomes a lot easier.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Theres a very real danger of the forum becoming a very elitist forum with only four or five posters.

I don't think the proposed changes would have that a dramatic effect on the number of posters, on 2 topics, Republican and PS pay threads, I can think of maybe 5/6 posters on both issues, on both sides, that would be soap boxers.

Focalbhach

Overheal wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with using a resource to learn. By providing sources you're still allowing anyone who happens to have a PHd, or be a Soldier, or a Lawyer, etc. to follow up with a rebuttal to what you have to say by correcting or dismantling what you have taken away from the source you gleaned the information from.

I'm aware you're referring to me, and that's what I do. You're equally as capable to refute what I have to say and I've been corrected on more than a few occasions, generally from people who handle the topics for a living or at least have been following them for years longer than I have. I don't see any problem with that as it's not a pissing match, it's a discussion about an interest in a topic that is helped best by having the best information. The thread itself can be a learning tool, keeping it much more in line with most of the other forums on the website.

The forum can be very useful from a learning point of view if the sentiment behind the bold text above is followed. The main problem with the practice of the idea is that people often get sucked into 'defending' their original statement instead of saying "oh, right... I see what you mean, let me have a think about it" when something contradictory is pointed out. Part of that, I think, is down to teh internetz - less consideration of other peoples' perspective is required when you interact with those people at a distance and, conversely, it can seem like a hostile place where changing opinions is a Bad Thing; a sign of inconsistency or an admission of 'defeat'. Part of it is simply that it's part of the existing culture of the forum (or some contributors to it) - fight or flight, with little compromise. I'd imagine that puts off people who might otherwise dip a toe into the Politics waters to learn more about a particular topic, but who don't want constant aggro for it.

southsiderosie

Just to follow up, it seems like there are a few changes in motion in the forum, and some proposals have been put forward, but can one/some of the mods update us on where they want to move/change things heading forward?

I am particularly interested in your take on re-structuring and/or closing some of the sub-forums.