A General Feedback thread

Laminations

If someone defends behaviour which is generally contsrued and openly called 'racist' and is then called on this they get infracted and possibly banned.

If someone defends (or sympathises) with these rioting yobs (who are not to be referred to as the s word), they are allowed their platform and are not infracted.

If posters are limited in expressing their anger about these yobs but others are allowed continually make inaccurate posts etc (which when repeated becomes quite inflammatory) then I can't see how people can debate fairly.

Is defending the indefensible only tolerated sometimes?

For instance - and in relation to my consistency point earlier - the s word is banned but someone can openly call the police pigs?

nesf

Laminations wrote: »

Verbosity is often trumped by the simple use of a single more apt word, I can use a hundred words to express my views on these looters, rioters and general thugs, but there is one that would better and more succinctly express my opinion of them and their behaviour.

Conciseness should be the preferred method of communicating a message

You can be perfectly concise without needing vulgarity.

Laminations

Another general feedback point.

There is little to no adjudication in debates.

Someone can provide pages of evidence, sources, links etc only for the opposing poster to ignore it all and continue forwarding their point. The issue of gay marriage and adoption is on my mind here - there is an abundance of evidence to counter the claim that gay adoption is bad for the kids, yet posters are allowed continue spouting this in the face of evidence produced for them.

nesf

Laminations wrote: »

Another general feedback point.

There is little to no adjudication in debates.

Someone can provide pages of evidence, sources, links etc only for the opposing poster to ignore it all and continue forwarding their point. The issue of gay marriage and adoption is on my mind here - there is an abundance of evidence to counter the claim that gay adoption is bad for the kids, yet posters are allowed continue spouting this in the face of evidence produced for them.

Easy, tell them to back up what they're saying with evidence. If they don't, ask them to withdraw the point. If they don't, report the post and the mods will step in.

Laminations

nesf wrote: »

You can be perfectly concise without needing vulgarity.

The issue again is that you see swear words as merely vulgar where as I see them as having expressive functions not available in common (or less common ) language.

I think a distinction can be made between when they are used for the former vs the latter

nesf

Laminations wrote: »

The issue again is that you see swear words as merely vulgar where as I see them as having expressive functions not available in common (or less common ) language.

I think a distinction can be made between when they are used for the former vs the latter

I think they can have expressive functions, but this is a site policy not a forum policy and I'm bound to uphold site policy whether or not I agree with it. I'm merely providing counter arguments to you.

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

If someone defends behaviour which is generally contsrued and openly called 'racist' and is then called on this they get infracted and possibly banned.

If someone defends (or sympathises) with these rioting yobs (who are not to be referred to as the s word), they are allowed their platform and are not infracted.

If posters are limited in expressing their anger about these yobs but others are allowed continually make inaccurate posts etc (which when repeated becomes quite inflammatory) then I can't see how people can debate fairly.

Is defending the indefensible only tolerated sometimes?

What you're comparing there is inaccuracy with vulgarity.

Laminations wrote: »

For instance - and in relation to my consistency point earlier - the s word is banned but someone can openly call the police pigs?

I'm keeping an eye on that one - there will probably be a point where we ask that that be dropped.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

Another general feedback point.

There is little to no adjudication in debates.

Someone can provide pages of evidence, sources, links etc only for the opposing poster to ignore it all and continue forwarding their point. The issue of gay marriage and adoption is on my mind here - there is an abundance of evidence to counter the claim that gay adoption is bad for the kids, yet posters are allowed continue spouting this in the face of evidence produced for them.

We do get fairly regular complaints about this, but we pretty much never get any requests to do it at the time. As nesf says, tell them to put up or shut up, and if they won't do either, give us a call.

cordially,
Scofflaw

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

If someone defends behaviour which is generally contsrued and openly called 'racist' and is then called on this they get infracted and possibly banned.

If someone defends (or sympathises) with these rioting yobs (who are not to be referred to as the s word), they are allowed their platform and are not infracted.

If posters are limited in expressing their anger about these yobs but others are allowed continually make inaccurate posts etc (which when repeated becomes quite inflammatory) then I can't see how people can debate fairly.

Is defending the indefensible only tolerated sometimes?

For instance - and in relation to my consistency point earlier - the s word is banned but someone can openly call the police pigs?

So basically your feedback is that people with a different political viewpoint to yours should be banned?

What a charmer you are.

Kivaro

There is a very fine line to moderate in the Politics forum, which ranks in the top 2 of my list of fora/forums. Even though I know that we ('the users') have been told frequently that freedom of speech is not guaranteed in this private entity (aka boards), the spirit of the concept is mainly adhered to.

Extremely intelligent discussions can be found here and they can become very passionate, which is why one sometimes needs the wisdom of Solomon to moderate this forum.

My general feedback is "job well done".

GuanYin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I spent 6 months on a doctors without borders placement. They didn't have boards.ie browsing level internet where I was. However, I told the mods/admins that I was talking to that I was going. Kinda surprised about this myself. Maybe they're scared that the internet would collapse if I wasn't a mod. :eek:

As I said in the other thread. I am sceptre (this should draw him out).

Kivaro

GuanYin wrote: »

I spent 6 months on a doctors without borders placement. They didn't have boards.ie browsing level internet where I was. However, I told the mods/admins that I was talking to that I was going. Kinda surprised about this myself. Maybe they're scared that the internet would collapse if I wasn't a mod.

Well then, if there was only one allowable reason for a mod to shirk their duties, your 'excuse' would be selected.

By the way, you're my hero.

Palmach

nesf wrote: »

I wanted to give you guys a chance to give us some general feedback on the forum. Is it not strict enough? Where could we improve things? How are you finding the moderation of the forum in general?

Please do not use this thread to argue individual bans or warnings, the DRP forum exists for that purpose.

I look forward to your input. If you don't want to comment publicly, feel free to PM me with any concerns you have.

The mods should understand politics.

Liam Byrne

Laminations wrote: »

Another general feedback point.

There is little to no adjudication in debates.

Someone can provide pages of evidence, sources, links etc only for the opposing poster to ignore it all and continue forwarding their point.

+1 on this, particularly in the context of the recent - er - "discussion" with someone on the Brendan Lillis thread; someone repeatedly ignored the facts and repeated their lies, and thankfully I had just given up on correcting them before the mod called a halt to what had degenerated into a sideshow.

The problem is that if someone refuses to accept a fact and then throws the lie back in as a justification later in the thread, there's a need to correct it, and it seems odd to report a post just because someone won't accept a fact, but letting it go unchallenged (each time) means their agenda is driven home to new readers joining late, while challenging it is sometimes "head-off-brick-wall" territory.

So some advice on what to do in this scenario would be appreciated; if someone says "xxxx is a paedophile" they are rightly challenged to back it up or retract, because there's a libel/slander issue, but is there scope for a similar one re less contentious lies?

And without overworking the mods?

Appreciate that it's a tough one, though.

meditraitor

The politics forum is moderated well, the real problem is the posters!

The vast majority are clever feckers and love nothing but an old debate, ego's get bruised when clever fellows are out-debated, the real friction is between the clever fellows and their particular nemisis's(sic).

Every time one of the clever fellows is undermined one of these "politics needs and new direction" threads is started up, usually as a soap box for the clever fellow who got undermined (and his coterie of hangers on) to take what they think is a clever swipe at his nemesis.

You see, even the not so clever fellows can see it, its amusing at the beginning but kind of boring after the first few punches are thrown because in the end the politics forum is well run and has provided more decent contributions than nonesense, there will be no great shift in any particular direction because there are too many opposite points of views.....

Dr Galen

Palmach wrote: »

The mods should understand politics.

Thats one thing that isn't a problem here then. Nice one

K-9

meditraitor wrote: »

The politics forum is moderated well, the real problem is the posters!

The vast majority are clever feckers and love nothing but an old debate, ego's get bruised when clever fellows are out-debated, the real friction is between the clever fellows and their particular nemisis's(sic).

Every time one of the clever fellows is undermined one of these "politics needs and new direction" threads is started up, usually as a soap box for the clever fellow who got undermined (and his coterie of hangers on) to take what they think is a clever swipe at his nemesis.

You see, even the not so clever fellows can see it, its amusing at the beginning but kind of boring after the first few punches are thrown because in the end the politics forum is well run and has provided more decent contributions than nonesense, there will be no great shift in any particular direction because there are too many opposite points of views.....

I'd agree it is the posters. There's a debate about calling people scumbags, yeah I think we all don't think much of the rioters but it only takes 5 seconds to think of another term. 5 seconds to not lower the standards to an AH discussion or to get "your say" in. If a mod calls you on it, take 5 seconds more on your post!

There'll always be debate and strong opinions that never change, that's politics. Posters should take the extra 5 seconds to see what they are adding to a debate. AH is there if that isn't your thing. Boards caters for both.

BluntGuy

I don't see any benefit in allowing scum/scumbags etc. to be used. Indeed it got slightly irritating to read through parts of the London riots thread where quite a number of posts were signed off with a useless "scum!"-type comment. Not to the point of ruining the thread of course, but entirely unnecessary all the same. I might call them "little sh*ts" in a chat in the kitchen, but I would have to agree with Scofflaw's position that it simply serves no benefit here. At first I thought it may have been a slightly arbitrary choice of word to ban, but upon seeing the frequency with which that particular word is used even with a ban in place, I can certainly more than appreciate the rationale.

The standard of moderating in my experience has been very good. I don't post here a whole lot, but I tend to spend a lot of time browsing the threads here. Nothing has ever jumped out at me as bad moderation.

Nodin

meditraitor wrote: »

The politics forum is moderated well, the real problem is the posters!

.....

They are certainly a disagreeable pack of fellows. Perhaps a mass banning would sort them out.


(This thread still needs to be stickied, IMO)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

"scum" was being overused, if I recall. Currently "thug" seems to be (IMO) heading the same way. Its the same principle as swearing, really, the odd fuck and blind is fair enough, but 3-4 uses per post in 10-15 posts to a 5 page thread?

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And this is why it is pointless. I can fully understand and appreciate the banning of pejorative descriptions of people based on their gender, sexuality, race, even religion - all of these things aren't choices. But describing people by their behaviour when that behaviour is wholly contemptible, when that behaviour suggests a certain moral standard they hold, when that behaviour is a choice, well then unless we ban all words that could be used as descriptor labels for a person based on their behaviour, I see it as pointless. Saying that I don't think people should be allowed post comments that merely contain any descriptor label and no other content.

I still think it is banned because some see it as an unfair marginalising label - but it is a label that is earned. And despite all that I accept the mods position, though I disagree with it, and I won't use banned words

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The IRgAy

Very poorly run forum with an ultra hardline, authoritarian approach to moderation.

Not only are warnings meeted out for most trivial of reasons, posts are deleted without an appended note from the moderators explaining why.

The amount of threads locked is also astonishingly high. In particular, Scofflaw seems to think it's acceptable to halt a discussion if it clashes with his view on the matter in hand, which is pretty shambolic by any standards.

Put simply: the mods need to abandon their priggish, hyper-sensitive approach to moderating.

1.5/10

meditraitor

The IRgAy wrote: »

Very poorly run forum with an ultra hardline, authoritarian approach to moderation.

Not only are warnings meeted out for most trivial of reasons, posts are deleted without an appended note from the moderators explaining why.

The amount of threads locked is also astonishingly high. In particular, Scofflaw seems to think it's acceptable to halt a discussion if it clashes with his view on the matter in hand, which is pretty shambolic by any standards.

Put simply: the mods need to abandon their priggish, hyper-sensitive approach to moderating.

1.5/10

Interesting, can you quote examples of this for me? I would be very upset if this was the case....

BlaasForRafa

Nodin wrote: »

They are certainly a disagreeable pack of fellows. Perhaps a mass banning would sort them out.

Starting with you



I can't recall if this was mentioned already but perhaps a subforum could be created to house threads that are more akin to current events like the London Riots, the Norway shootings etc, call it breaking news or something. I suggest this because that type of thread is usually fairly fast moving and often seems to be full of people that are posting while watching Sky News. They are quite different in nature from normal politics threads like the Gay marraige thread or Sinn Fein proposing a United Ireland referendum.

If there are too many subforums already then the Political debate and general election 2011 threads could probably be done away with at this stage. A "breaking news" type thread could also have slightly looser rules than the main Politics forum but not as free-for-all as AH

Nodin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Starting with you

While I do like to delude myself I'm on the side of the angels, I've never been so far gone as to imagine I was one.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Monty Burnz

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Perhaps, but I doubt that would be the intent of anyone posting on the politics forum. You've lost any argument before it has started if you talk about poor people as 'scum' by definition.