Religious Threads in After Hours

K-9

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm not a fan of the pub analogy much myself K-9, but I just used the phrase because that's what's in the charter. To put religion in the context of a sports discussion- Religion threads are like Man U supporters on one side calling Liverpool supporters a shower of ****. We wouldn't tolerate it. Even more of us who have been around a while would say "Hasn't this been done to death already?".

But that again goes back to the point that many threads and topics have been done to death already, I'm not a fan of that point either unless we've a plethora of similar topics taking over the forum as a common occurrence.

Religious threads go through troughs and peaks of interest, and the church and religion are in the news recently, especially with the abortion stuff. Us posters with big post counts and around here a long time, should show awareness that newer posters haven't seen it all before, want to debate these topics ad nausea, just as most of us did when we were noobs, and the old fogeys moaned about us.

I get to see more than my fair share of common threads on both politics and AH, so I'm probably as aware as anybody as to repetitive threads done over and over, with usually the same set of posters voicing their opinions on similar subjects. So many debates and threads are exactly because people have their pet hates and things they feel passionate about, it's what makes Boards tick.

So why is it that a majority of atheists are allowed free reign to sneer at religion and use AH as their own personal "Look at this lads- I just found another reason to pat myself on the back for being an enlightened atheist intellectual as opposed to those kiddie fiddling delusional religious numptys". If there was ever a more apt use of the phrase "thinly veiled", it's a thread that starts off with "Have you ever witnessed someone losing their religion?" that quickly descends into a tiresome tirade against the RCC. What the fcuk is posters affirming their atheist status and their hatred of religion supposed to achieve if not just to make them feel more smug about themselves?

I don't see anything wrong with having a thread about people who lost their faith, or redefined their belief, there were some very informative posts last time I looked in that thread, mostly from people who still had a belief but it had changed, or agnostic posters putting forward their belief that the church does get a bad time of it. I think there is room for decent, informative and entertaining threads about religion and atheism on AH, maybe we need stricter moderation to weed out the soap boxers, people just using various threads to throw digs at the other side.

Soap boxing needs to be defined. Somebody can have a huge interest in Republican matters for example, post largely in those threads and still not soap box, even though their opinion mightn't change much. Somebody else could do the exact same but just shout at people all the time, ignoring other points and posters, that's the type of poster we don't need IMO, the former is fine.

It's misdirected anger IMO though. Instead of getting angry at the church- get angry at the bastards that facilitated and perpetuated these crimes under false pretences. Get angry at the people who still corrupt and twist religion to further their own agenda. The important thing is to do so in the right forum. AH in my opinion isn't it. That's just, to coin a phrase- preaching to the converted.

That doesn't mean people are wrong to be angry, I understand your point but religion is like politics. Some people will never forgive FF from 30 years ago, SF and the troubles or a perfect recent example, Thatcher and the Tories. I really don't see why the Church should be immune from that type of criticism and long term memory on AH. It's also difficult to totally put a ban on religion on AH, an Irish forum, as religion permeates politics, education, even sport to an extent, even to this day.

It goes back to the point that I'd say nearly every regular has some topic they don't like to see get discussed on AH, and think it is better discussed in the specialist fora. Religion is a very difficult one to ban, as many do want to discuss it, there is merit in leaving it, maybe stricter moderation to lower the noise levels and see how it goes.

I'm not a fan of sugar coating either tbh, I wouldn't actually say the above IN a discussion in After Hours though as it would be uncivil. But this is Feedback, and I was making the point about the run of these religion threads, as opposed to taking swipes at individual posters.

I appreciate that, but there a few religious followers who do take swipes at atheists just like that, and it's a big part of the problem.

Micky Dolenz

Religious threads are something we are actively discussing as a team and if the truth be told it is a hard one with many different opinions. Feedback is appreciated and welcomed.

The sport issue is unanimous amongst us as a no go, with rare exceptions pending mod discretion.

Super-Rush

padd b1975 wrote: »

Then you would be mistaken.

Last time I checked this was the FEEDBACK forum where FEEDBACK is supposed to be welcomed from posters.

I must clarify that my ill worded post was not in reference to you giving feedback it was in reference to you not liking people having a differing opinion to yours regarding the catholic church. Like i said, my post was ill worded and i apologise for that.

Dav wrote: »

You know what, posting like this helps no one and only damages your reputation as a mod.

He's got a very valid point, I see people being scorned and mocked for having religious belief's on this site all the time.

That's a world apart from criticism of an institution like the RC Church which should, as far as I'm concerned, be burnt to the ground for it's corruption and complacency and indeed active defence of some of the most horrific acts of violence against other humans.

Where are the valid points Dav?

Is this a valid point?

padd b1975 wrote: »

There is one poster that I have noticed that can be gauranteed to start a Catholic bashing thread given just a whiff of a chance to do so.

He/she is using AH and the way its moderated to further his/her own bigoted opinion of the Catholic Church.

Certain posters use AH to as a soapbox because of the way we moderate? Thats not feedback, thats a swipe at myself and the rest of my co mods.

padd b1975 wrote: »

Moderation is generally very good in my opinion.

However, the fact that religious threads inevitably turn into tools for catholic church bashing is not something mods should be proud of

So moderation is good as long as we only allow people who support the RCC to post in religious threads? Like i said in an earlier post, people are entitled to critisise the RCC.

padd b1975 wrote: »

Point taken.

When I see mods trotting out the old 'report posts' mantra, I am always tempted to reply with 'try and find the time to read some of the busier threads on the forum you moderate'.

Look, I appreciate where you're coming from on this so I will definitely make more of an effort to report posts I feel are out of order.

Another needless swipe at myself and my co mods.

padd b1975 wrote: »

Criticise? Yes, absolutely no problem with this from my end.

But 'bashing' is a totally different animal entirely.

Example; all clergy are child molesters.

Childish references to the sky fairy and flying spaghetti monster.

How old are the posters that trot out this gibberish???

11??



No offence implied to 11 year olds.

Would i be right in saying that your involvement in this thread and the above posts is because you were infracted for calling people who criticised the RCC a bigoted sectarian in the thread about TD's being refused communion if they voted pro abortion?

Everyone else who defended the RCC in that thread were able to do so without breaking the rules.

The people against the RCC were able to post without breaking the rules. Not one person mocked practicing catholics or said that all members of the clergy were/are child molesters.

I'm using that thread as an example as it is the most recent thread regarding the RCC.

I've gone through the first 35 pages of AH and found two threads about religion, so its not like there is a thread started every day or even every week about religion. Also in these threads nobody is allowed to make sweeping generalisations or insult or belittle people because of their beliefs. If posts that break these rules go unactioned then its because we have missed them accidentally not because we don't care or as you stated earlier that we are proud of them. This happens on a daily basis in hundreds of threads on a huge variety of topics. We can't read every post in every thread.

Czarcasm

Super-Rush wrote: »

I must clarify that my ill worded post was not in reference to you giving feedback it was in reference to you not liking people having a differing opinion to yours regarding the catholic church. Like i said, my post was ill worded and i apologise for that.

It's one thing though SR to to have a different opinion, but it's how people express that opinion that I find tiresome. Only a handful of times in 36 years have I ever come across people offline that have used phrases like sky fairies and kiddie fiddlers etc in relation to the RCC. It's not even offensive any more even though it's intended to be offensive, because it's lost all it's barb having become as over used as blast it with piss. Those people who use such phrases give atheism and anti-theism a bad name. There are plenty in AH who CAN criticise the RCC and not resort to lazy, thanks whoring efforts. Their points are a lot easier to read than this regurgitated sky fairy kiddie fiddling nonsense.

I've been involved in many threads where posters who just happen to be atheist just post to take pot shots at the RCC and their beliefs and not contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way. It's tiresome, is the problem, it was never offensive, it's just embarrassing for the posters that use these phrases because it's become like a broken record at this point- "sky fairy this, kiddie fiddler that". Change the bloody record already.

Certain posters use AH to as a soapbox because of the way we moderate? Thats not feedback, thats a swipe at myself and the rest of my co mods.

I'm not going to zero in on particular posters as that to me is always unfair, but like I said in a previous post- AH IS unfortunately like an ill educated soap boxers wet dream, and the recent thread (more recent than the TD's or the reasonable debate about abortion, or the two how much money for communion threads, that's four religion related threads by my count, oh, the cutting of the welfare payment for religious occasions, that's five!) about losing your religion, they're threads that would get fcukall traction in forums like Atheism or State Benefits.

So moderation is good as long as we only allow people who support the RCC to post in religious threads? Like i said in an earlier post, people are entitled to critisise the RCC.

I'm all for constructive criticism of any subject me, not just religion or the RCC, but the sky fairy kiddie fiddling stuff is old, yet it's resurrected more times than Jesus! It's embarrassing at this stage, for the posters that use such phrases that is.

I've gone through the first 35 pages of AH and found two threads about religion, so its not like there is a thread started every day or even every week about religion. Also in these threads nobody is allowed to make sweeping generalisations or insult or belittle people because of their beliefs. If posts that break these rules go unactioned then its because we have missed them accidentally not because we don't care or as you stated earlier that we are proud of them. This happens on a daily basis in hundreds of threads on a huge variety of topics. We can't read every post in every thread.

It's a bit much now to say between eight mods that you don't take a quick skim through a thread where you know it's likely to be a highly contentious issue and you miss posters decrying sky fairies and kiddie fiddlers, etc. It's not my own confirmation bias, that's for sure!

Benny_Cake

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's one thing though SR to to have a different opinion, but it's how people express that opinion that I find tiresome. Only a handful of times in 36 years have I ever come across people offline that have used phrases like sky fairies and kiddie fiddlers etc in relation to the RCC. It's not even offensive any more even though it's intended to be offensive, because it's lost all it's barb having become as over used as blast it with piss. Those people who use such phrases give atheism and anti-theism a bad name. There are plenty in AH who CAN criticise the RCC and not resort to lazy, thanks whoring efforts. Their points are a lot easier to read than this regurgitated sky fairy kiddie fiddling nonsense.

I would definitely agree that the phrase "sky fairy" is up there with "sheeple" in terms of obnoxiousness, generally if I see someone using that phrase I immediately stop listening to whatever else they say. It's a simplistic approach to denigrating a broad spectrum of believers, which are often quite complex and have little to do with the notion of a bearded man who sits on a cloud pulling all the strings.

I actually thought there were some decent contributors on the "losing your religion" thread, even if it seems to start with the assumption that everyone has lost their religion. I'd also add that I've found a lot of the time, it tends to be the same small group of users who out the sky fairy remarks, while there are a very small number of religious posters (often the same person, I'm convinced) who cause trouble from that side. Certainly there are some very good atheist contributors in Christianity who treat others with respect, while the small number of bigots who are simply there to cause trouble usually get themselves banned.

I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect the AH mods to read each and every post, so it's up to the users to report posts when things step over the line.

Czarcasm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect the AH mods to read each and every post, so it's up to the users to report posts when things step over the line.

I know this is slightly off topic, but there's five Moderators in After Hours Benny (and that's not including four Category Moderators), I mean, unless "delegation" is a dirty word around here, that's more than enough to handle the volume of traffic in After Hours. I'm only one poster and 99% of the time I'm posting on the touch site, yet I still manage to read not just all the threads in After Hours, but in plenty of other forums too.

And it's not because I have nothing better to do all day, I have a full day every day, so the excuse that Moderators are "only" volunteers, just doesn't wash IMO. They know well as I said before, when a thread might be divisive and contentious and require closer scrutiny than other more trivial threads. I don't accept for a minute that they view all threads the same.

The point about reporting posts too, while it's a valid one, can also go the other way too, which is why I don't report every single post I find objectionable, because the Reported Posts forum would be full of posts from one person and Beruthiel would have my guts for garters. It also makes a mockery of the report posts function and Moderators wouldn't be long thinking "Oh it's only Czarcasm again", and I wouldn't blame them.

I sometimes use the report post function on a thread too by way of giving the Moderators a heads up on a thread I think might go down the rabbit hole fast and descend into a farce or a circular argument.

In other words- it's best to try and strike a balance between under-reporting posts, and over-reporting posts, in the same way as it's best to try and strike a balance in discussions about religion in AH between those who want to have a rational discussion on the issue as it affects society, and those extremists on both sides of the religious or atheist divide who only want to take snide pot shots at each other under the guise of contributing their opinion on an issue based on their belief or lack thereof in a deity.

I'm able to leave my religion out of AH and still express my revulsion at the child molesters, perverts and the incompetent bastards that facilitated them, I can't see why atheists shouldn't be expected to do the very same.

MrPudding

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm only one poster and 99% of the time I'm posting on the touch site, yet I still manage to read not just all the threads in After Hours, but in plenty of other forums too.

Then you have waaay too much time on your hands. I think it is unreasonable to expect everyone to have a much time as that.

MrP

Super-Rush

Czarcasm wrote: »

I know this is slightly off topic, but there's five Moderators in After Hours Benny (and that's not including four Category Moderators), I mean, unless "delegation" is a dirty word around here, that's more than enough to handle the volume of traffic in After Hours. I'm only one poster and 99% of the time I'm posting on the touch site, yet I still manage to read not just all the threads in After Hours, but in plenty of other forums too.

And it's not because I have nothing better to do all day, I have a full day every day, so the excuse that Moderators are "only" volunteers, just doesn't wash IMO. They know well as I said before, when a thread might be divisive and contentious and require closer scrutiny than other more trivial threads. I don't accept for a minute that they view all threads the same.

The point about reporting posts too, while it's a valid one, can also go the other way too, which is why I don't report every single post I find objectionable, because the Reported Posts forum would be full of posts from one person and Beruthiel would have my guts for garters. It also makes a mockery of the report posts function and Moderators wouldn't be long thinking "Oh it's only Czarcasm again", and I wouldn't blame them.

I sometimes use the report post function on a thread too by way of giving the Moderators a heads up on a thread I think might go down the rabbit hole fast and descend into a farce or a circular argument.

In other words- it's best to try and strike a balance between under-reporting posts, and over-reporting posts, in the same way as it's best to try and strike a balance in discussions about religion in AH between those who want to have a rational discussion on the issue as it affects society, and those extremists on both sides of the religious or atheist divide who only want to take snide pot shots at each other under the guise of contributing their opinion on an issue based on their belief or lack thereof in a deity.

I'm able to leave my religion out of AH and still express my revulsion at the child molesters, perverts and the incompetent bastards that facilitated them, I can't see why atheists shouldn't be expected to do the very same.

Mods don't have to just read threads once you know. We have to read them over and over again as new posts are added. We also have to go through what's being reported, clean up threads, remove spam, deal with PM's when we have to ban/infract/warn people, explain what and why we've done certain things in our own forums to make things easier for admins and cmods in the DRF. We have to do all this while doing our jobs that we get paid for so we can put a roof over our heads and food on the table. You haven't a clue about the amount of work that goes into modding and in particular modding AH.

Benny_Cake

Czarcasm wrote: »

I know this is slightly off topic, but there's five Moderators in After Hours Benny (and that's not including four Category Moderators), I mean, unless "delegation" is a dirty word around here, that's more than enough to handle the volume of traffic in After Hours. I'm only one poster and 99% of the time I'm posting on the touch site, yet I still manage to read not just all the threads in After Hours, but in plenty of other forums too.

I dunno, the forum I moderate gets a miniscule amount of traffic in comparison to AH and even at that there are occasional posts I miss. There may be 5 mods in After Hours but unless they allocate threads amongst themselves to read every day they are going to miss stuff, it's a fact of life. I'm speaking for myself here, but if I was asked to read every post on AH I'd really want to be put on the payroll, the coke and hookers wouldn't be quite enough!

With regard to nuisance reporting of posts, I've found this to be quite rare. It can be frustrating for mods when a poster is banned, and then comes back with a list of posts for which no action was taking, "proving" that the moderator is biased. Invariably these were posts which went unreported at the time. I don't think over-reporting is much of a concern once common sense is applied.

Czarcasm

MrPudding wrote: »

Then you have waaay too much time on your hands. I think it is unreasonable to expect everyone to have a much time as that.

MrP

You've never heard of the concept of MAKING time for something you're passionate about? There are 24 hours in a day, it doesn't take a lot of time out of my day to read through a few threads on boards, keep up with the forums I'm subscribed to, and then even some I'm not subscribed to that I'd just check in on every so often.

There's nothing rocket science about efficient time management, anyone can do it and there are no special skills or extra time on hands required.

Penn

Czarcasm wrote: »

You've never heard of the concept of MAKING time for something you're passionate about? There are 24 hours in a day, it doesn't take a lot of time out of my day to read through a few threads on boards, keep up with the forums I'm subscribed to, and then even some I'm not subscribed to that I'd just check in on every so often.

There's nothing rocket science about efficient time management, anyone can do it and there are no special skills or extra time on hands required.

Czarcasm, there is simply no way what you're suggesting would work for a number of reasons, not least of which that it would be almost impossible to find suitable mods who would be willing to volunteer that much time and effort for free. Mods are expected to keep an eye over the forum and respond to reported posts as and when they can. The idea of some sort of organised rota where they divide threads and organise ways to make sure at least every post is read by one mod, is completely unworkable.

The AH mods put in a tremendous amount of time and work already considering the traffic that forum gets, the number of posts which get reported from it, doing checks when suspecting someone is a rereg, looking over past history of some posters etc etc. Asking for anything more than that is completely ridiculous.

The report function is there for a reason. If there's a post the mods should look at, report it. The mod will then "make time" to deal with it. "Making time" to read every post on the forum just because it's a forum they're "passionate about", would completely kill any passion they had for it.

Czarcasm

Penn wrote: »

Czarcasm, there is simply no way what you're suggesting would work for a number of reasons, not least of which that it would be almost impossible to find suitable mods who would be willing to volunteer that much time and effort for free. Mods are expected to keep an eye over the forum and respond to reported posts as and when they can. The idea of some sort of organised rota where they divide threads and organise ways to make sure at least every post is read by one mod, is completely unworkable.

You'd be surprised how many times I hear that phrase on an almost weekly basis before I take on a project, but I've said it before and I'll say it again- People are resistant to change at first, but if you can put in place a system that makes less work for everyone and enables everyone to work smarter and more efficiently, then it's worth motivating them to get over the initial hump to implement and work with the new system. I'm not saying there has to be an organised rota, but if it were to be taken seriously, there's no doubt a better system could be implemented to make everyone's workload easier.

The AH mods put in a tremendous amount of time and work already considering the traffic that forum gets, the number of posts which get reported from it, doing checks when suspecting someone is a rereg, looking over past history of some posters etc etc. Asking for anything more than that is completely ridiculous.

I'm aware Penn that Moderators do sterling work in the background and that it goes unseen on the front end, but I'm just suggesting that they can make the work easier on themselves by implementing a better system. It doesn't have to be rota based, but without knowing more about the current system I wouldn't be able to put forward any solid theories about designing a better system at this point.

As for the bolded bit- I don't think you're giving people enough credit, I know in my own team of people I can call on when I need to get something done, they've always gone beyond themselves to contribute to the projects success.

The report function is there for a reason. If there's a post the mods should look at, report it. The mod will then "make time" to deal with it. "Making time" to read every post on the forum just because it's a forum they're "passionate about", would completely kill any passion they had for it.

I don't know what's with all the inverted commas Penn tbh. In the time it's taken me to write this post, I've had a shower, been down to Dunnes Stores to do the week's grocery shopping (where the checkout girl packed my bags, a small amount of effort required on her part, but it means I'll look out for her next time I'm in to do a shopping!), fired off a couple of e-mails, replied to a couple of texts, and now I'm off to a communion after party!

There had better be drink at this thing, and I'm not talking the communal wine type plonk, mine's a brandy, and a badly needed one at that!

Czarcasm

Super-Rush wrote: »

Mods don't have to just read threads once you know. We have to read them over and over again as new posts are added. We also have to go through what's being reported, clean up threads, remove spam, deal with PM's when we have to ban/infract/warn people, explain what and why we've done certain things in our own forums to make things easier for admins and cmods in the DRF. We have to do all this while doing our jobs that we get paid for so we can put a roof over our heads and food on the table. You haven't a clue about the amount of work that goes into modding and in particular modding AH.

With all due respect SR and while you're an exemplary Moderator in After Hours, I hope you take it as a constructive criticism when I say that in Feedback as an ordinary poster, you make a piss poor representation of yourself. With a little thought, you could have made a far more constructive post rather than one that came off as so condescendingly inaccurate.

While it's true I don't know the exact inner workings of boards.ie and in particular AH, to get into a pissing contest about my project management chops would be to stoop to your level of condescension.


I'm not about to do that and I think we've gone far enough off topic already so with that in mind I'll step out now and let somebody else get a word in edgeways.

Penn

Czarcasm wrote: »

You'd be surprised how many times I hear that phrase on an almost weekly basis before I take on a project, but I've said it before and I'll say it again- People are resistant to change at first, but if you can put in place a system that makes less work for everyone and enables everyone to work smarter and more efficiently, then it's worth motivating them to get over the initial hump to implement and work with the new system. I'm not saying there has to be an organised rota, but if it were to be taken seriously, there's no doubt a better system could be implemented to make everyone's workload easier.

But that's a comparison with actual employment, which is a completely different scenario, and again, being a mod here is something you do if and when you have the chance to do so. You do it in between your real work and your real life commitments. You have to put in that extra effort in work because it has an impact on your employment and career. The same logic cannot be implied to a volunteer position like this on a website. People may think of that as being a cop out. Doesn't change that fact that it's true. Mods cannot be expected to work as hard and devote that much time to modding their forums as they do to their actual jobs, particularly at the expense of their job or real life commitments. It's a ridiculous standpoint.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm aware Penn that Moderators do sterling work in the background and that it goes unseen on the front end, but I'm just suggesting that they can make the work easier on themselves by implementing a better system. It doesn't have to be rota based, but without knowing more about the current system I wouldn't be able to put forward any solid theories about designing a better system at this point.

As for the bolded bit- I don't think you're giving people enough credit, I know in my own team of people I can call on when I need to get something done, they've always gone beyond themselves to contribute to the projects success.

Again, the system in place is that mods are expected to respond to reported posts and keep an eye out for trouble if and when they can. Expecting anything more than that is unrealistic. I understand what you mean about your team of people working hard to complete projects, and have done so for my own employers on several occasions. I didn't do it for free though. They pay me, and it's part of my job to do so. In order to remain in employment and advance my career, that's what I have to do. That's part and parcel of the job. Didn't get overtime, didn't get extra holidays, but the work had to be done so I did it. Same with your employees.

But that's not applicable to being a Boards mod.

Nodin

If contentious issues are a problem, you might as well close the forum. As regards what offends people - anyone who moderates AH knows exactly what gets my goat, yet I've yet to start a thread here to get the related subjects banned. IRL and on the net, people aren't going to agree, and they aren't nesseciarly going to spare each others feelings. C'est la vie.

P. Breathnach

Nodin wrote: »

If contentious issues are a problem, you might as well close the forum. As regards what offends people - anyone who moderates AH knows exactly what gets my goat, yet I've yet to start a thread here to get the related subjects banned. IRL and on the net, people aren't going to agree, and they aren't nesseciarly going to spare each others feelings. C'est la vie.

So the "don't be a dick" guideline shouldn't apply in AH?

Nodin

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So the "don't be a dick" guideline shouldn't apply in AH?

People can use the report function if something is deemed over the line.

padd b1975

Super-Rush wrote: »

I must clarify that my ill worded post was not in reference to you giving
feedback it was in reference to you not liking people having a differing opinion
to yours regarding the catholic church. Like i said, my post was ill worded and
i apologise for that.

Thank you for the apology, I actually was not in the least offended by your remarks but it is appreciated none the less.

We move on.

Certain posters use AH to as a soapbox because of the way we moderate? Thats
not feedback, thats a swipe at myself and the rest of my co mods.

Please take it as genuine feeback and not as a swipe.

I believe that certain anti religion posters deliberately target AH when opening a church bashing thread as a result of mods taking a laid back attitude towards the usual barbs that will inevitably be trotted out sooner or later, usually to much virtual high fives.

I hate to say they have free reign to spout their bigoted and insulting sound bites but it seems to be pretty close.

So moderation is good as long as we only allow people who support the RCC to
post in religious threads? Like i said in an earlier post, people are entitled
to critisise the RCC.

I said this too earlier in the thread, in fact you have quoted the post in which I said it.

Another needless swipe at myself and my co mods.

Not one of my better moments, so apologies for that.

Would i be right in saying that your involvement in this thread and the above
posts is because you were infracted for calling people who criticised the RCC a
bigoted sectarian in the thread about TD's being refused communion if they voted
pro abortion?

Not at all, I was infracted for this post which was deemed to be uncivil, I did not contest the infraction.
I said that what he was contrbuting to the thread was bigoted and sectarian.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84489191&postcount=429

Everyone else who defended the RCC in that thread were able to do so without
breaking the rules.

I don't think the rules are fair to catholic/christian posters as they stand.

Not one person mocked practicing catholics or said that all
members of the clergy were/are child molesters.

Heres a flavour of some of the stuff a catholic would find insulting. Remember this is the thread you are using as an example so I assume you have read it and could have taken action on these insulting posts as you read them.

I heard the tooth fairy won't leave 50c under their pillows anymore either

.

Or, you know, they could grow up and stop with the make-believe.

Oh no! No more magic bread!

It's telling them Santa won't leave them
any presents under the tree next Christmas if they vote for abortion.

Surely any smart person doesn't believe in sky ghosts and as such, doesn't go to
mass right?

These relic folk worshipping the sky fairies

They can make do with Milky Way buttons

Those wafers are horrible anyway. Always though a bit of cheese on them would
improve them no end. The fcukers never share the wine either!

Stingy bastards with the wine alright.

I found out the secret ingredient of communion isn't Jesus at all. It's just
bread! I went down to the shop, bought some ciabatta, nailed two bits of wood
together and had mass at home. It costs a fraction of the price of going out to
mass and the quality of the body of christ is way better.

Thank fuck I am Gluten intolerant.
The lord Jesus gives
me awful acid reflux.
What a shower of retards.

no communion for you sir...
please join the other que and take the first left
for sexual abuse.

Besides communion tastes like crap. When will they bring in flavoured communions
or even better why not give out crisps instead. I may go watch that freakshow on
a Sunday instead on sleeping in.

Piss poor threat by the intermediaries of the sky man.

Hmmmmmmmmm one who believes in virgins giving birth, little wafers magically
turning to the flesh of a person who died 2000 years ago, that water once
blessed by a priest gains magical powers, etc, questioning the intelligence of
others? Nice.

Not very nice is it?

nobody is allowed to make sweeping generalisations or insult or belittle people
because of their beliefs.

Read the above quotes and tell me how they are not examples of what you claim not to be allowed please.

If posts that break these rules go unactioned then its because we have missed them accidentally not because we don't care or as you stated earlier that we are proud of them.

What I said was 'it's not something you should be proud of'
This does not automatically mean that I think you are proud of it:(

Nodin

padd b1975 wrote: »

Not very nice is it?

It's humour.

Cabaal

padd b1975 wrote: »

Not very nice is it?
Read the above quotes and tell me how they are not examples of what you claim not to be allowed please.

What I said was 'it's not something you should be proud of'
This does not automatically mean that I think you are proud of it:(

So let me get this straight?

You want something done about comments against your religion,

BUT, its fine for you to belittle what others consider a religion? (your previous comments referring to FSM as childish...how is this any different to calling your god a sky fairy?)

Just because you don't view the likes of FSM as a religion doesn't mean it isn't to others, I mean there's as much proof for it as a religion as any other...including your own. Its all about belief and faith in a being at the end of the day isn't it?

Frankly, I'm happy as hell we've moved on from the 1950's where saying something about the RCC even if it was 100% factual and true could get you shunned by an entire town/village and the local priest. This explains why so many things went unreported back then.

What you are seeing in the thread and others is people finally speaking out against the RCC in anger but using humor to do it at the same time, so many people in their 20's, 30's and 40's simply have no more time for the RCC in Ireland and see the organization as a joke due to its continued double standards, failure to recognize half of the human race as equal (its a boys club after all) and continued failings in so many other area's.

In fairness we have a situation where Brady will walk around a shrine at the top of a mountain in protest of the abortion legislation which the government must enact....but he wouldn't walk a few hundred metres to his local Gardai station to report the sexual abuse he knew about and helped cover up.

Do you prefer that people stay silent and hold the anger inside in relation to how the RCC as a organization covered its crimes?

Should they not be allowed speak about the double standards of the church even using humor? The RCC will stop communion to TD's because of the abortion thing but they won't kick all sexual abusing priests out of the organization...because the priests asked for forgiveness and said they were sorry.

Its also sort of amusing that you say the comments made are insulting to Catholics, are you sure about this?

Didn't the latest census info put Ireland at somewhere in the region of 86% catholic?

Surely this would mean that after hours has a majority catholic readership simply based on the numbers in Ireland. If this was the case then surely it would be offensive to a majority in the forum and mods would get hundreds of reports.....I don't think this is happening so this suggests its not as offensive as you claim.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Cabaal

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You do know that users can use the report post option right? If the posts are so offensive then why are they all not reported?

Posts in general (not just religious) are also subjective, what you may find deeply offensive others may find very very funny.

Even if you create a system where every single post on such a busy forum is read by a mod (an utter waste of time in my view) that still in no way means content will be any different,

Again this comes down to, if Ireland has such a big catholic base and the comments made are so insulting to Catholics then why aren't religious threads in after hours the most reported posts on boards.ie?

Why are you looking to blame mods for not monitoring content when users can report content they find offensive, the report post function works fine on the site and other forums... why suggest it doesn't for religious threads in After Hours?

Nodin

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's for users to report posts. If nobody is reporting them then there isn't a problem. If they're reported and not deemed outside the charter, there isn't a problem.

So far this looks more like an attempt to be very squeaky in order to garner some oil, tbh.

Handsome Bob

Cabaal wrote: »

Just because you don't view the likes of FSM as a religion doesn't mean it isn't to others, I mean there's as much proof for it as a religion as any other...including your own. Its all about belief and faith in a being at the end of the day isn't it?

You really are dumbing yourself down with this kind of argument. It's not the same and we both know it.

And this is coming from a faithless person.

Penn

darced wrote: »

In fairness I dont like the catholic church but the level of insults it and it's follower's recieve,some quoted above,is way over the top with no action taken by mods.

Are mods really saying they cant read the vast majority of posts in after hours between five mods,I mean if it's a contentious thread surely it should be watched.

Maybe if mods cant give an hour a day to actually go through threads they should'nt be modding.

Or if posters spent an extra two minutes reporting posts which need to be brought to the mods attention, the mods would only have to spend 15 minutes dealing with them.

People are asking far too much from the mods in this case. As a CMod I've had to ask people if they want to be a mod (in cases where an existing mod left and needed a replacement or similar circumstances). Many have said they're not sure what was expected from them or how much time they'd have to devote to it, and I've always told them the truth as I see it; it's about spending an extra few minutes when you'd be on Boards anyway to contribute to the upkeep of the forum and deal with any issues which arise, if and when you can, and not at the expense of real-life commitments.

If anything more was expected or what some people have called for in this thread was true, it would be incredibly difficult to find enough mods, or mods who would stay on long enough without the modships becoming revolving door scenarios.

Pawwed Rig

Penn wrote: »

Or if posters spent an extra two minutes reporting posts which need to be brought to the mods attention, the mods would only have to spend 15 minutes dealing with them.

I generally agree with your last post. Outside of AH I tend to report any post I come across that I think 'breaks the rules' and 9 times out of 10 action is taken by the relevant mod which indicates to me that I have a fair idea of what is allowed and what is not. However in after hours I have found that any of the posts I report are not dealt with. I have reported clearly racist posts where no action was taken so I am actually at a loss as to what is acceptable there or not. I PM'd a AH mod once about a different issue and received a very abrupt and dismissive response so that avenue seems blocked too. So you're back to the feedback issue of reporting into a black hole. Hence the reason that I try not to post in AH at all these days.

Czarcasm

Penn wrote: »

Or if posters spent an extra two minutes reporting posts which need to be brought to the mods attention, the mods would only have to spend 15 minutes dealing with them.

I don't mind Penn taking the time to report posts, but often times those posts haven't been considered infractible by Moderators (not just in After Hours) so reporting posts becomes a demotivational exercise. The fact they weren't considered infractible then leads me to believe that when similar is posted, it won't be considered infractible either. That's the application of common sense right there.

I just have to take it on the chin that while a post is considered objectionable to me, the Moderators of that forum don't believe it falls below the standards set for the forum by it's Moderators.

People are asking far too much from the mods in this case. As a CMod I've had to ask people if they want to be a mod (in cases where an existing mod left and needed a replacement or similar circumstances). Many have said they're not sure what was expected from them or how much time they'd have to devote to it, and I've always told them the truth as I see it; it's about spending an extra few minutes when you'd be on Boards anyway to contribute to the upkeep of the forum and deal with any issues which arise, if and when you can, and not at the expense of real-life commitments.

I absolutely agree with you that moderating an Internet forum can be a time consuming exercise that requires a certain amount of commitment, but it also requires a very pro-active attitude to making the forum a place that's attractive for posters of all persuasions. For example having been an Administrator and partnership owner of various tech sites in the past, I know the amount of commitment involved, and what it takes to keep the forums attractive for posters of all persuasions (I don't think I need point out how feverent, and quite frankly arrogant, posters can be about their OS or hardware. It can indeed be as divisive as sports or religion!).

Some of the posters here in this thread alone have shown a complete unwillingness to understand where some posters are coming from and it turns people off even attempting to give feedback when they feel their concerns are not being taken seriously and are either belittled or completely dismissed out of hand. This discourages them from engaging in the feedback process and they just leave the forum. Not to worry, there's plenty more where they came from with new posters registering all the time, right? More lambs to the slaughter tbh and the forum just gets sloppier and more disjointed, losing it's community ethos in the process.

If anything more was expected or what some people have called for in this thread was true, it would be incredibly difficult to find enough mods, or mods who would stay on long enough without the modships becoming revolving door scenarios.

Would it be so terrible if Moderators are charged with responsibility when they are given authority? It's a voluntary position, but as you pointed out earlier- people who do not feel they can give the commitment required are perfectly entitled to turn down the offer. Worse than the revolving door scenario is the complacency scenario. Sure, it can take time to find the right people with the right attitude and the willingness to commit the effort required, but when you do- it shows in the forum and makes it an attractive place to be for all the posters or stakeholders concerned.



With regard to earlier when I mentioned my team, I'm actually self-employed as an IT Consultant by profession, but my team are the people I can call on in my voluntary work who are professionals in a number of disciplines in their own right, and when I need to call on their expertise, it's never cost me a cent. They go above and beyond because they're passionate about helping people fulfill their potential in the same way as I am.

Boards IMO seems to have lost it's community ethos, and has gained an image of a hierarchy only interested in making new members a priority, forgetting about the opinions of it's long term members who object to direction it's taken. I think it's time for a Second Vatican Boards Council.

Cabaal

Handsome Bob wrote: »

You really are dumbing yourself down with this kind of argument. It's not the same and we both know it.

And this is coming from a faithless person.

Fair enough I don't personally see it as the same and same as yourself, but my point is its possible somebody may see it as a viable religion suitable for there needs.

Like all religions, who are we to question it if they do?

Yeah it seems silly, but then pretty much every religion seems silly if you break it down and examine what people actually believe in.

Thats the whole point of the FSM, it really is no different to anything else, it can neither be proven or dis-proven if you go on faith alone.

The only thing that makes the christen faith any more "real" is its 2,000 years old, but yet there's faiths that existed before it so are they not more real?

K-9

Czarcasm wrote: »

I don't mind Penn taking the time to report posts, but often times those posts haven't been considered infractible by Moderators (not just in After Hours) so reporting posts becomes a demotivational exercise. The fact they weren't considered infractible then leads me to believe that when similar is posted, it won't be considered infractible either. That's the application of common sense right there.

I just have to take it on the chin that while a post is considered objectionable to me, the Moderators of that forum don't believe it falls below the standards set for the forum by it's Moderators.

A lot of the time you mightn't even notice a mod action, so the report was acted on, just not visible. Posts that some type of action wasn't taken would make up a small percentage in my experience. The action could be as little as just taking note of it to keep an eye on, to giving a poster a long ban because of their track record, a lot of this you just wont see.

darced

This post has been deleted.