Feedback Request:

nesf

I'm going to leave this open for a few days to gather some opinions to inform the mods on what changes to make.


What I would like you to do is list a few things you'd like to see changed about the Politics forums. Less abuse, more a clampdown on nonsense posts or whatever.

Being concise and easy to read is a bonus. If you could order them in rank of importance that'd be great.


Thanks very much.

MagicMarker

More cowbell.

silverharp

boards forums tend to be over moderated, apart from perosnal abuse let the silly threads alone, the lashback from subsequant posters will be more instructive and can be quite entertaining

SupaNova

From other feedback threads, the crap culture of debate was mentioned as a problem. Can poster's report each other for consistently making ad hominem rants, or can something like this be stickied?

https://www.msu.edu/~jdowell/135/FaultyLogic.html

wes

I think something should be done about Astro turfers, who sign on to discuss one topic, and basically make false accusation against other posters, and generally drag down the level of debate, more so than usual, and essentially provide arguement found on other sites and provide nothing to the discussion.

Cork boy 55

I don't came in here much but
It would be better if Moderartion could be less but don't go as far as politics.ie where they seem to have scrapped moderation something in between.

The main issue I see is the design of the subforums.
You currently have 7 subforums + a main forum

The main forum is a bit chaotic it has all sorts of stuff in it
and some the subforums are unnesscary

I would redesign the subforums from scrath
scrap the main page /forum
have about 10 subforums covering everything
like a slimmed down politics.ie
"a place for everything and everything in its place"
it would look a tidier and easy to find stuff.


Something like

Irish national politics
Irish local politics
Irish political parties
Irish ecomony
Global ecomony
Northern Ireland
Forign affairs(europe Uk and USA subforums)
Politics cafe/humour
Policital reform, debate and theory.
Current affairs/breakingnews.
Election forum for ongoing elections.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Something like

Irish national politics
Irish local politics
Irish political parties
Irish ecomony
Global ecomony
Northern Ireland
Forign affairs(europe Uk and USA subforums)
Politics cafe/humour
Policital reform, debate and theory.
Current affairs/breakingnews.
Election forum for ongoing elections.

I think a Foreign affairs/Geopolitics forum would be good to tidy up all middle east, China&Russia, US foreign policy threads etc. I would definitely leave out the current affairs/breaking news forum, as a breaking story can usually be associated with a particular sub forum and posted there. Also i would keep the EU forum.

nesf

SupaNova wrote: »

I think a Foreign affairs/Geopolitics forum would be good to tidy up all middle east, China&Russia, US foreign policy threads etc.

Yeah, we could move all NI threads there...

Stripey Cat

A sticky with a running list of untrue or highly questionable statements that are routinely asserted as fact. (E.g. "Ireland has trillions of euros' worth of oil and gas reserves off its coast. If we nationalized them, we'd be a wealthy country.") To continue insisting that something is factually true after it has been repeatedly debunked should be an infraction-worthy offense.

Who gets to decide what is true or not? Your example, for example, has not been debunked in my opinion. (I don't want to derail this thread, but you brought it up.)

nesf

Stripey Cat wrote: »

Who gets to decide what is true or not? Your example, for example, has not been debunked in my opinion. (I don't want to derail this thread, but you brought it up.)

Don't drag this thread off topic. Do a search and you'll find a good post from Scofflaw explaining the fallacy of the gas reserve claim.

If you want to still argue after that, drag that thread up and say I told you to.

Stripey Cat

nesf wrote: »

Don't drag this thread off topic.

You raised it.

I'm sure I could find posts which prove the truth of this claim. Just because you agree with someone doesn't make them right.

The question is who decides what meets the criteria of "true" or "false" claims?

nesf

Stripey Cat wrote: »

You raised it.

I'm sure I could find posts which prove the truth of this claim. Just because you agree with someone doesn't make them right.

The question is who decides what meets the criteria of "true" or "false" claims?

Please start a thread on this topic, we can discuss it there.

spank_inferno

How about extra level of permission being required to post a comment?

Like whats in place at the soccer forum

might dampen down the crazy somewhat.

Stripey Cat

Please start a thread on this topic, we can discuss it there.

I have no desire to start a thread on the way this country's resources are managed. If you want to raise it as an issue you should perhaps have started such a thread.

The question is not about the truth or otherwise of your example, it's about who you think would get to decide the truth or or otherwise of claims like this.

nesf

Stripey Cat wrote: »

I have no desire to start a thread on the way this country's resources are managed. If you want to raise it as an issue you should perhaps have started such a thread.

The question is not about the truth or otherwise of your example, it's about who you think would get to decide the truth or or otherwise of claims like this.

I was referring to you starting a thread about who gets to decide the truth on this forum. Sorry if I was unclear.

ilovesleep

Correct me if I am wrong please but isn't the politics cafe meant for light hearted discussions?

The mods over in AH can be touchy at the best of times about political matters. I would like to see the politics cafe over in AH as a subforum.

Molloys Clondalkin

Aminimum post count of 100 to be allowed post that will stop the one off users.

Regular checking of dual accounts on everyone and banning users who post comments/claims/accusations without a shred of evidence.

Bringing up things that are over a year old (subject to mod approval etc).
This will stop the old news stories getting rehashed when things are slow.

Supermerges of threads like Israel/palestine Irish economy etc.
Theres really no need to have twenty threads on one subject clogging up the forum.

RobbieTheRobber

Molloys Clondalkin wrote: »

Aminimum post count of 100 to be allowed post that will stop the one off users.

I dont know if that would be the right approach i think this being a politics forum perhaps users might be eranged by something current which brings them to here, but perhaps a minimum post level as you suggest could be used for the creation of threads.

Molloys Clondalkin

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I dont know if that would be the right approach i think this being a politics forum perhaps users might be eranged by something current which brings them to here, but perhaps a minimum post level as you suggest could be used for the creation of threads.

It doesnt have to be a hundred I just pluked that number out of the air but something more like 25 at least.
That will stop those who are Banned or trolls who just sign up to post nonsence get there 4 or 5 posts in and get banned.
Definitly on the creation of threads 100 per cent agree.

Executive Steve

Ban everyone apart from Scofflaw, and we all chip in a few quid a week to enable him or her to be able to post full time on here.

Result: standard of debate rises immeasurably; erudite professorial discussions become the norm, trolling becomes a thing of the past.


admiringly,

Executive Steve

steelcityblues

Threads that discuss legitimate events like who controls the worlds finances, or were any major attacks inside jobs, not to be swiftly dragged to the CT section.

Doubt this will happen, though.

NewHillel

Executive Steve wrote: »

Ban everyone apart from Scofflaw, and we all chip in a few quid a week to enable him or her to be able to post full time on here.

Result: standard of debate rises immeasurably; erudite professorial discussions become the norm, trolling becomes a thing of the past.


admiringly,

Executive Steve

I'll gladly chip in a few quid!

Supportively,

Hillel.

MungBean

Stripey Cat wrote: »

The question is who decides what meets the criteria of "true" or "false" claims?

If such a sticky was brought in I'm sure it would contain only facts and not one sides opinion of any matter. In relation to the oil and gas thing and other topics a short list of the facts would go a long way in stopping the repeated argument. It wouldnt be the "truth" according to anyone just a list of facts with relevant links.

I'd second Permabears suggestions. I like the idea of adding a global sub forum too.

Pete_Cavan

spank_inferno wrote: »

How about extra level of permission being required to post a comment?

Like whats in place at the soccer forum

might dampen down the crazy somewhat.

I was going to suggest this after reading the OP but I see you beat me too it. Set this forum up like the soccer forum that you can only post once you after been accepted by a mod after reading the charter and answering a question on the charter to prove you have read it. Once this is in place, clamp down on those who break the rules - they have read the charter so there is no excuse for breaking the rules. The charter should be more revered, a bit like the constitution - just dont let Alan Shatter near it.

Also, I dont think we should go too crazy with the subforums, the more there are the harder it is to follow everything. Restricting those who can start threads should result in a lower number of higher quality threads, which mean subforums could be quite broad

meglome

Stripey Cat wrote: »

Who gets to decide what is true or not? Your example, for example, has not been debunked in my opinion. (I don't want to derail this thread, but you brought it up.)

If you make a claim, in this case that we have billions of oil and gas and we would be rich if we nationalised them, then the onus is on you to prove that. Your post should use logic and evidence, the evidence should be from a high quality source if possible. It's that simple. If you do that some people may still disagree but the majority will accept your point as it's been shown to be factual and not just your opinion.

Off topic...
The problem with this particular claim is we don't have many billions in oil and gas. We might have, it's possible.... maybe. But it would be crazy for our government, which has zero experience in oil/gas exploration, to bet the farm on it and hope for the best.

meglome

MungBean wrote: »

If such a sticky was brought in I'm sure it would contain only facts and not one sides opinion of any matter. In relation to the oil and gas thing and other topics a short list of the facts would go a long way in stopping the repeated argument. It wouldnt be the "truth" according to anyone just a list of facts with relevant links.

I'd second Permabears suggestions. I like the idea of adding a global sub forum too.

I suggested a Myth vs Reality sticky about a year ago here...

Still think it would be a great idea, though difficult to operate in practice.

jank

Posters who soapbox and repeat the same ol stuff again and again in a thread should be infracted.

Minimum post count for posters who want to contribute. Will stop a lot of the above.

Moderators should moderate and NOT contribute to any up coming referendum threads e.g. last Lisbon Referendum blatant bias IMO for the yes side from moderators. The whole arguments gets slanted. Bias can only be achieved when moderators don't contribute in these discussions. It would be like Matt Copper trying to host a deate while also arguing his own personal view. It just cannot happen! Let the users argue their points within the allocated rules.

whatstherush

jank wrote: »

Minimum post count for posters who want to contribute. Will stop a lot of the above.

I don't agree with this, as you can see from my post total for seven years. I read alot but do like to dip my toe now and then.

johnnyskeleton

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I would urge caution on this because while it might seem to you obviously untrue, to others, it might seem like an issue up for debate. This type of infraction for not knowing the facts was used for the misunderstaning of the Dublin 2 convention when people were talking about no direct flights from Nigeria to Dublin. However, it also caught up people commenting on section 11b of the refugee act. It also possibly punished people for simple ignorance ratherthan bullheadedness.

A better approach in my view would be to target trolls ie those people who, when corrected, still assert their view as fact without backup.

Or to have megamerge threads. The legal discussion forum has a new freemen of the land type thread every month and infractions/warnings were going nowhere. But a freemen megamerge thread but all those threads in a nice, easy to ignore thread.

johnnyskeleton

Molloys Clondalkin wrote:

Supermerges of threads like Israel/palestine Irish economy etc.
Theres really no need to have twenty threads on one subject clogging up the forum.

supermerges are good where there is a discrete topic with lots of repetitive comments eg pamela izbevkai. But that doesn't mean that the broader topics such as the middle east or immigration in general should be merged into one huge unwieldy thread. For example, a post about relations between the west bank and gaza could get lost in a thread full of pro/anti-Israeli invective.

I'd be all for megamerges of the "israel/plaestine is evil, here's why" threads.

This way, everything is left open, but the crazies get to battle it out amongst themselves.

Eliot Rosewater

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The winner of best poster of the year is - Scofflaw! And the prize - the complete works of Ludwig von Mises, sponsored by Permabear!


I agree with all Permabear's bullet points, but particularly with the conciser charter suggestion and the "serious and legitimate discussion" point, though I understand that the mod team what to strike a balance between accessibility and seriousness.

I think people need to report more posts. During my tenure as mod I was very surprised at the lack of reported posts. But this is arguably a two-way process: if people feel action is being taken they'll be more inclined to report posts. I imagine a lot of the rubbish posting survives merely because it's not reported.

I would also be in favour of the Political Theory sub-forum being moderated more strictly than the rest. The accessibility consideration doesn't really apply, and, more than any other forum, low-quality posts really disturb the discussion.

gaffer91

I post very rarely (altough I read regularly), so obviously its understandable if what I say carries less weight but one thing that really annoys me, and I'm sure others, are threads like these- http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055996440.

Its complete and utter nonsense. The OP clearly detests FF, and while this is fine, its obvious from the get-go he is not open to any debate on the particular issue mentioned, or most likely any issue relating to them.

The thread therefore only really serves as a pulpit to rant from, not an opening for an interesting and constructive debate.

Obviously I realise that it will be difficult to establish beyond doubt whether a poster is ranting or simply feels strongly on a particular issue, and for that reason I understand if the mods find it difficult or even impossible to take action on such threads. I just thought I'd say it and see what people think.

nesf

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I agree with all Permabear's bullet points, but particularly with the conciser charter suggestion and the "serious and legitimate discussion" point, though I understand that the mod team what to strike a balance between accessibility and seriousness.

He's taking that idea from something mods suggested we were thinking of doing.

nesf

jank wrote: »

Moderators should moderate and NOT contribute to any up coming referendum threads e.g. last Lisbon Referendum blatant bias IMO for the yes side from moderators. The whole arguments gets slanted. Bias can only be achieved when moderators don't contribute in these discussions. It would be like Matt Copper trying to host a deate while also arguing his own personal view. It just cannot happen! Let the users argue their points within the allocated rules.

We have DRP to avoid this necessity. We also have several mods who don't care about the EU much. And Dades, who handles Politics DRP stuff isn't political. So it's not necessary.

We're posters here too remember, I doubt any of us would mod this forum if we couldn't still post on threads as posters you know, it's not like we're paid to do this.

ILikeBananas

+1 for a World Politics forum.

I always feel that although the main forum is "general politics" there's almost an unwritten rule that it's Irish Politics. I appreciate that there are a lot more people interested in national politics than in international politics and as a result if anyone starts a thread on Russia, China or South Africa for example, it often doesn't last too long on the front page.

It'd be nice to have a forum of it's own for these threads so that they have a bit more permanency. For example, the bottom post on the front page of the main forum was made last night whereas the bottom post in the US Politics forum was made a month ago. One particular advantage of this is that it gives people who may live in these countries and who don't come on too regularly a chance to log in periodically and make a good quality contribution to a relevant thread.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

edanto

Permabear more or less covered the changes that I'd like to see.

One to emphasise would be mods intervening to improve the standard of threads (like Dr G did here). Granted, there is some subjectivity in that, but what could happen would be:

- You're in the forum reading a thread and it strikes you that this is another stupid thread recyling tired arguments that have been amply covered in another thread, or it is a thread composed mainly of directionless one liners, or the thread has been dragged well off topic.

- Report one of the posts and say that you are actually reporting the thread for one of the above reasons

- Mods review the thread and issue a general warning based on the charter. If it turns out that some people ignore the warning, then move into infractions etc.

The main point being that we, as forum users, ask for the help of the mods in creating the standard of debate that we want to read and take part in.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I would urge caution on this because while it might seem to you obviously untrue, to others, it might seem like an issue up for debate. This type of infraction for not knowing the facts was used for the misunderstaning of the Dublin 2 convention when people were talking about no direct flights from Nigeria to Dublin. However, it also caught up people commenting on section 11b of the refugee act. It also possibly punished people for simple ignorance ratherthan bullheadedness.

A better approach in my view would be to target trolls ie those people who, when corrected, still assert their view as fact without backup.

I agree... it also drives me mad when certain posters just ignore facts that disprove earlier comments they have made and they continue to post on a tangent to other posters. It's like they realise they aren't getting anywhere with one comment so they swiftly attempt to divert the attention.

Or to have megamerge threads. The legal discussion forum has a new freemen of the land type thread every month and infractions/warnings were going nowhere. But a freemen megamerge thread but all those threads in a nice, easy to ignore thread.

IGNORE!? That's by far the funniest thread in LD (not a particularly hilarious forum )


What about a political conspiracy theories subforum in Politics? It could be a bit looser like the Cafe where we can all have a little gawk and giggle at the crazies. :P

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The winner of best poster of the year is - Scofflaw! And the prize - the complete works of Ludwig von Mises, sponsored by Permabear!

Ah hang on now, I MUST be in the running somehow!

DB21

A declaration of interest thread, like at C&T. Anyone who is connected to a political figure should have to declare so before posting. I've seen some inexplicable bias in my short time here.

Lockstep

Megamerge threads, zero tolerance on personal attacks, a sticky on common fallacies and end-of-year prizes are all excellent ideas IMHO

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Four months ago, I was in hospital.

Dannyboy83

Suggestions:
I agree with the minimum post count for STARTING a thread, not for participating tho.
I think that would cut down on the amount of passer-by rage threads, without making it a private debating club.

A flame thread -> whenever people divert good topics, move their posts into the one giant flame thread and let them flame to their hearts content and continue their battles - to the e-n-d (not to a different thread the subsequent week).
This would apply heavily to the IRA ones I think, some of the public/private sector ones etc.

For the record, I think the moderating has vastly improved recently.

Naz_st

No idea if this is feasible, but the ability as a user to "prefer" certain posters might be useful, such that in any thread as you scroll down there could be some visual representation of posts by those posters who you have "preferred" - this would allow someone to easily scan through a thread and easily find posts they know are by those posters who have made (subjectively) reasonable arguments in the past.

A corollary of this would be useful statistical data over the longer term of those posters who are most "preferred", which could form the basis of more comprehensive changes later on (e.g. in the same way that Google's PageRank works, those posters who have been "preferred" by other posters with a high "preference" rating could have a different status or something...).

nesf

Naz_st wrote: »

No idea if this is feasible, but the ability as a user to "prefer" certain posters might be useful, such that in any thread as you scroll down there could be some visual representation of posts by those posters who you have "preferred" - this would allow someone to easily scan through a thread and easily find posts they know are by those posters who have made (subjectively) reasonable arguments in the past.

A corollary of this would be useful statistical data over the longer term of those posters who are most "preferred", which could form the basis of more comprehensive changes later on (e.g. in the same way that Google's PageRank works, those posters who have been "preferred" by other posters with a high "preference" rating could have a different status or something...).

I don't think that's possible with VBulletin but there's no harm in bringing it up in the Site Development forum here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=228

Chuck Stone

Remove the thanks option from politics.

It's pathetic and gets overused for 'popular' posters.

edanto

I disagree, I think it's a good way of showing support for a post without clogging up the thread with "+1"s

nesf

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Remove the thanks option from politics.

It's pathetic and gets overused for 'popular' posters.

It's abused definitely and I seriously have a problem with people thanking a post that abused someone and the original poster gets banned.

That said, it does serve a valuable purpose and when used right it is a good way of showing support for a position in a debate.

Suryavarman

nesf wrote: »

It's abused definitely and I seriously have a problem with people thanking a post that abused someone and the original poster gets banned.

That said, it does serve a valuable purpose and when used right it is a good way of showing support for a position in a debate.

Plus we all love that warm fuzzy feeling we get inside when somebody thanks our post.

Chuck Stone

edanto wrote: »

I disagree, I think it's a good way of showing support for a post without clogging up the thread with "+1"s

It lends undue legitimacy to popular and middle-of-the-road opinions and causes people to appeal to the middle ground.

I'm as much of a filthy thanks whore as anyone else in AH but in politics I feel it's counter-productive to good debate.