A General Feedback thread

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The IRgAy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're deluding yourself if you think anoyone will read a charter when they join an interent forum, long or short.

FFS, the internet is supposed to be a place to escpae this kind of tiresome nonsense.

anymore

The IRgAy wrote: »

You're deluding yourself if you think anoyone will read a charter when they join an interent forum, long or short.

FFS, the internet is supposed to be a place to escpae this kind of tiresome nonsense.

I have to say this post probably reflects a lot of peopl's views.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Monty Burnz

The IRgAy wrote: »

You're deluding yourself if you think anoyone will read a charter when they join an interent forum, long or short.

FFS, the internet is supposed to be a place to escpae this kind of tiresome nonsense.

But the politics forum is a private club - if you want to post there, you stick by the rules. Fair enough if you don't want to read them, but you will be booted out if you keep breaking them.

I'm sure you understand why it's necessary to have rules if you're going to have a decent standard of discussion.

The IRgAy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But the politics forum is a private club - if you want to post there, you stick by the rules. Fair enough if you don't want to read them, but you will be booted out if you keep breaking them.

I'm sure you understand why it's necessary to have rules if you're going to have a decent standard of discussion.

If you look at this forum -- a plethora of locked threads and reprimands handed out willy nilly -- it's not exactly an example of how to run a decent discussion forum.

I'd take a few insults hurled my way above the kind of pedantry so ubiquitous on this forum tbh.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The IRgAy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How about a trial of this?

Monty Burnz

The IRgAy wrote: »

If you look at this forum -- a plethora of locked threads and reprimands handed out willy nilly -- it's not exactly an example of how to run a decent discussion forum.

I'd take a few insults hurled my way above the kind of pedantry so ubiquitous on this forum tbh.

And there are lots of places where you can go to get that - but this isn't one of them. I don't see what the problem is. (by the way, I speak as someone who has run foul of the rules a few times)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

The IRgAy wrote: »

How about a trial of this?

When you set it up, post the URL here.

Zubeneschamali

I think that temporarily banning the word "scum" in the London riots thread was no harm, as most posts calling the rioters scum were just unthoughtout reflex, added nothing and lowered the tone.

I don't like the idea of an ever growing autofilter of unusable words, since it becomes unmanageable, and people end up getting dinged for talking about scum on their mug of tea.

It also leads to people automatically typing known dodgy words in weird ways, just to beat the filter, (skum, sc*m etc.) and then that has to be made a infraction, and things escalate.

The IRgAy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because the mods are over enthusiastic in their interpretation of these rules.

The sheer pedantry shown by them is absurd!

I suggest a trial period of limited mod intervention; if there is excessive abuse you can review accordingly.

Or are you afraid you will be surplus to requirements as a result?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluntGuy

Nodin wrote: »

"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?

I occasionally use the word "crap" and indeed on other forums I have on rare occasion , with the assistance of an asterisk or two, used a profane word here or there. But 99% of the time, the point can be made exactly the same and indeed better without resorting to such language. Typically such language comes attached to emotional arguments, which are the absolute poorest ones, especially in political debate.

I can certainly appreciate Perma's point about substituting "scum" for other words, indeed that was one of my first thoughts. But there does seem to be a particular predisposition to shove in that particular word over other equivalent ones, so I don't think the ban is an arbitrary one.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

The IRgAy wrote: »

If you look at this forum -- a plethora of locked threads and reprimands handed out willy nilly -- it's not exactly an example of how to run a decent discussion forum.

I'd take a few insults hurled my way above the kind of pedantry so ubiquitous on this forum tbh.

If you are continually running into the same issue across multiple forums, perhaps the problem lies with your posting style and not with the moderators.

The IRgAy

BluntGuy wrote: »

I occasionally use the word "crap" and indeed on other forums I have on rare occasion , with the assistance of an asterisk or two, used a profane word here or there. But 99% of the time, the point can be made exactly the same and indeed better without resorting to such language. Typically such language comes attached to emotional arguments, which are the absolute poorest ones, especially in political debate.

I can certainly appreciate Perma's point about substituting "scum" for other words, indeed that was one of my first thoughts. But there does seem to be a particular predisposition to shove in that particular word over other equivalent ones, so I don't think the ban is an arbitrary one.

I thought most people were adults on this forum?

Most reasonable adults couldn't care less if people swear or not.

Zubeneschamali

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I stand corrected. It is not, however, autofiltered like the words **** or ****, and I would prefer that it should not be.

BluntGuy

The IRgAy wrote: »

Because the mods are over enthusiastic in their interpretation of these rules.

The sheer pedantry shown by them is absurd!

I suggest a trial period of limited mod intervention; if there is excessive abuse you can review accordingly.

Or are you afraid you will be surplus to requirements as a result?

Your suggestion is unreasonable and unworkable.

What does "limited" mean?

What is "excess abuse"?

And furthermore, why should this idea even be entertained?

What exactly have you been disallowed to say?

The IRgAy wrote: »

I thought most people were adults on this forum?

Most reasonable adults couldn't care less if people swear or not.

Most reasonable adults can make a point without swearing.

coffee_cake

The IRgAy wrote: »

Because the mods are over enthusiastic in their interpretation of these rules.

The sheer pedantry shown by them is absurd!

I suggest a trial period of limited mod intervention; if there is excessive abuse you can review accordingly.

Or are you afraid you will be surplus to requirements as a result?

Will you stop posting rubbish

The IRgAy

BluntGuy wrote: »

Your suggestion is unreasonable and unworkable.

What does "limited" mean?

What is "excess abuse"?

And furthermore, why should this idea even be entertained?

What exactly have you been disallowed to say?




Most reasonable adults can make a point without swearing.

This is a feedback thread right? Or are you just going to ignore feeback that you don't agree with?

You can easily ignore swearing if it bothers you, as opposed to treating adults like children and banning it.

BluntGuy

The IRgAy wrote: »

This is a feedback thread right? Or are you just going to ignore feeback that you don't agree with?

I'm asking you to justify your position. Why would a period of little to no moderation benefit the forum, how would it add to discussion? Also I think you might be lumping in all the people with bolded names here. We don't all moderate politics, you are aware of that right? Anyone who isn't a politics mod posts here in exactly the same capacity as you. I just take an interest in seeing this forum be as good as it can be, because I frequent it. Nothing more.

You can easily ignore swearing if it bothers you, as opposed to treating adults like children and banning it.

Why do you feel like you're being treated like a child, by a perfectly reasonable rule that exists to keep up the standard of debate. Why do you feel so hard done by? What do you think will be added to the discussion by allowing profanity?

The IRgAy

BluntGuy wrote: »

I'm asking you to justify your position. Why would a period of little to no moderation benefit the forum, how would it add to discussion? Also I think you might be lumping in all the people with bolded names here. We don't all moderate politics, you are aware of that right? Anyone who isn't a politics mod posts here in exactly the same capacity as you. I just take an interest in seeing this forum be as good as it can be, because I frequent it. Nothing more.



Why do you feel like you're being treated like a child, by a perfectly reasonable rule that exists to keep up the standard of debate. Why do you feel so hard done by? What do you think will be added to the discussion by allowing profanity?

Firstly, I don't check who is a mod or who isn't. As far as I'm concerend, all the posters are the same to me. It's when my posts are deleted and/or interrupted that I take offense.

Secondly, swearing neither adds nor detracts from proceedings, so it should not be blocked just to appease overly sensitive posters. I'm sure the majority feel this way. You can conduct a poll to be sure.

If you don't like it, ignore it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

paul71

The IRgAy wrote: »

Secondly, swearing neither adds nor detracts from proceedings, so it should not be blocked just to appease overly sensitive posters. I'm sure the majority feel this way. You can conduct a poll to be sure.

If you don't like it, ignore it.

Not everyone can or does ignore swearing unfortunately, human nature being what it is results in people re-acting poorly to perceived insults and reacting without forethought (myself included sometimes), resulting in a spiraling downward trend in the quality of debate.

later12

Sorry to bring this up again, but it is a niggling point and can affect the readability of the forum... can something be done about all the stickies?

I raised this twice after the iphone friendly version of the site came on stream, and there was a request from one of the admins that stickies be cut down to about three across the website, yet the main politics board and irisheconomy still have eight and nine stickies respectively.

It just means that threads disappear off the front page quicker, if you're on a device, and it may cause duplication of recent threads, or just basically uncomfortable site navigation. Could the forum not lose the bottom 4 stickies, for example?

Just a minor point that doesn't really seem to belong anywhere else...

Laminations

Rather than stickies appearing as separate threads, could a sub-forum on rules and decorum be created to adopt all of these stickies?

Might neaten it all up like people are requesting?

K-9

The IRgAy wrote: »

Firstly, I don't check who is a mod or who isn't. As far as I'm concerend, all the posters are the same to me. It's when my posts are deleted and/or interrupted that I take offense.

Secondly, swearing neither adds nor detracts from proceedings, so it should not be blocked just to appease overly sensitive posters. I'm sure the majority feel this way. You can conduct a poll to be sure.

If you don't like it, ignore it.

Posts are deleted for good reasons.

You've After Hours or other sites if you can't meet the higher standards here.

coffee_cake

we don't need another subforum and nobody would read it anyway

fewer & shorter succinct stickies is what we need