AH - FYI Thread

WindSock

Perhaps you could just report the offending post so the Mods can take action instead of dragging up a month old thread where the possibility of them seeing your comment is slim.

I don't see why my thread was locked before I got to reply. I started it previously to bring to the attention that this policy may be overlooked easily by posters in AH, I posted an example of a thread that shows this may be the case.

For me to report individual posts, I think would be unfair. I was highlighting the problem that it is perhaps not as common knowledge in AH as is expected to be.

Insect Overlord

Reporting it would be a helpful step towards fixing the problem.
More posts reported => more on-thread warnings => greater awareness.
It's a simple enough system.

WindSock

It's a 3 day old thread with lots of comments already on it. I am not going to go through the thread and report every post that I think are not in line when I have already given and still am (trying to) give my Feedback that I think it is not common enough knowledge about this policy.
That is just an easy enough example of one thread, too.

Blowfish

Would reporting the first post and mentioning in the report that there is abuse throughout the thread not make sense?

WindSock

The point of this feedback I am giving is the reason behind the abuse throughout that particular thread, and most other threads that involve public figures in AH. Hence the fyi at the heading. It is my belief that it is not common knowledge in AH that negative posting toward Irish figures is no longer tolerated, or the lines seem a little blurry at least. So this problem may arise time and time again.

TouchingVirus

All 200 people who frequent here will just see your recent attempt at a bump as a swipe at "double standards" in After Hours though, since that's precisely how it came across.

Meanwhile, if you reported the thread and warnings/bans were handed out, all 6000+ who hang out in AH, the forum this actually concerns, will quickly come to realise what is and isn't acceptable. That is the whole point of this exercise, right?

Insect Overlord

WindSock wrote: »

It is my belief that it is not common knowledge in AH that negative posting toward Irish figures is no longer tolerated, or the lines seem a little blurry at least.

It's nothing to do with "negative posting", it's about obvious personal abuse. You can still criticise people if you think they deserve it. You just have to do it without childishly resorting to name-calling.

WindSock

TouchingVirus wrote: »

All 200 people who frequent here will just see your recent attempt at a bump as a swipe at "double standards" in After Hours though, since that's precisely how it came across.

Meanwhile, if you reported the thread and warnings/bans were handed out, all 6000+ who hang out in AH, the forum this actually concerns, will quickly come to realise what is and isn't acceptable. That is the whole point of this exercise, right?

Here we go again...

No, I am giving my feedback that I think this policy needs more attention being brought to it rather than a few reported posts here and there as the forum seems rife with this sort of posting, perhaps there is a general unawareness.
The fact that the thread was 3 days old and filled with abusive posting would indicate so, the title for instance should be an instant alarm bell yet nothing was picked up on until I posted the thread here, which led me to believe that perhaps other mods aren't even aware of it, let alone posters, or maybe the lines are blurred on actionable posts. Again, I am sure the SOPA debacle had many posts about Sherlock that were left untouched, therefore an indication that this type of posting is ok sometimes, and isn't at others.


I don't understand why there seems to be a huge problem with my giving feedback on something in the Feedback forum. In fact, it feels most uncivil at times. Direct personal abuse actually would be easier to deal with instead of insidiously snide remarks.

Micky Dolenz

WindSock wrote: »

Here we go again...

No, I am giving my feedback that I think this policy needs more attention being brought to it rather than a few reported posts here and there as the forum seems rife with this sort of posting, perhaps there is a general unawareness.
The fact that the thread was 3 days old and filled with abusive posting would indicate so, the title for instance should be an instant alarm bell yet nothing was picked up on until I posted the thread here, which led me to believe that perhaps other mods aren't even aware of it, let alone posters, or maybe the lines are blurred on actionable posts. Again, I am sure the SOPA debacle had many posts about Sherlock that were left untouched, therefore an indication that this type of posting is ok sometimes, and isn't at others.


I don't understand why there seems to be a huge problem with my giving feedback on something in the Feedback forum. In fact, it feels most uncivil at times. Direct personal abuse actually would be easier to deal with instead of insidiously snide remarks.

The thread was posted early on a friday evening. Normally we would close it and direct to celeb or TV forum, with a note to observe their respective charter. It was missed over the weekend. Things like that happen.

We do however see your point and your recent feedback has certainly highlighted an issue that we feel needs addressing. The whole celeb/private figure bashing was brought to our attention, maybe a year and a half ago. In that time we have enforced it when it was brought to our attention. It is nearly a non written rule among the community now, but non written rules don't hold up under scrutiny. We are aware of the general site wide policy but it really doesn't make it crystal clear.

In light of this, we have amended the AH charter to address this.

WindSock

That's top of the pops, Micky. Thanks for your civil input and understanding of the issue highlighted.

TouchingVirus

WindSock wrote: »

Direct personal abuse actually would be easier to deal with instead of insidiously snide remarks.

WindSock wrote: »

Thanks for your civil input and understanding of the issue highlighted.

Failing to see my lack of civility, but at least you got it sorted

Varied

The closing admin post on that thread is disgraceful tbh.

I thought there was a sitewide "don't be a dick" policy.

hullaballoo

I know I'm chiming in late on this but there is a serious problem with site policy if posters are not free to criticise elected representatives, however they see fit.

If you can't criticise politicians and government without fear of reprisal, then you're not in a democracy.

Is boards.ie now acting as a censor for politicians? Would this issue be cured if I posted my name and address for the service of proceedings any time I post negative comment about a politician?

Micky Dolenz

hullaballoo wrote: »

I know I'm chiming in late on this but there is a serious problem with site policy if posters are not free to criticise elected representatives, however they see fit.

If you can't criticise politicians and government without fear of reprisal, then you're not in a democracy.

Is boards.ie now acting as a censor for politicians? Would this issue be cured if I posted my name and address for the service of proceedings any time I post negative comment about a politician?

I can't see how you have come to that conclusion.

Every public figure is open to criticism, However there is a differeance between:

Mr X does a real poor job for these reasons.............

and

Mr X is a fat cnut.

Dravokivich

Calling a politician a prick is not criticising the politician as it has no bearing on their policies or ideals. It's just flat out nonsensical personal abuse. Which is not wanted here in any form regardless of who it is targetted towards.

hullaballoo

There's a difference between calling someone a fat [expletive] and a useless [expletive].

If you discount the expletives, then you get to the point. We should be entitled to call our politicians useless, if that's what we think. If you want to get rid of cursing, that's another policy requirement altogether.

K-9

hullaballoo wrote: »

There's a difference between calling someone a fat [expletive] and a useless [expletive].

If you discount the expletives, then you get to the point. We should be entitled to call our politicians useless, if that's what we think. If you want to get rid of cursing, that's another policy requirement altogether.

Well there are plenty of posters in Politics who've no problem calling them useless etc., we don't allow abuse and it doesn't seem to lessen the forum at all.

Tombi!

hullaballoo wrote: »

There's a difference between calling someone a fat [expletive] and a useless [expletive].

If you discount the expletives, then you get to the point. We should be entitled to call our politicians useless, if that's what we think. If you want to get rid of cursing, that's another policy requirement altogether.

Well calling someone useless is an opinion.

Calling someone a name is well, useless.

It's basically: you can call them whatever you like if you can prove it. Within reasonm obviously.

Madam_X

Varied wrote: »

The closing admin post on that thread is disgraceful tbh.

I thought there was a sitewide "don't be a dick" policy.

Indeed. And the same two people jumping on WindSock to have a go at her giving feedback on the Feedback forum, and then the most vocal of the two pretending not to know what she's talking about when she calls them up on it. Do they feel some sort of duty to Boards.ie or something?

With regards to the policy: if I for instance want to say "Eoghan Harris is a reprehensible human being" then why can't I? I guess I would support why though.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

We do however see your point and your recent feedback has certainly highlighted an issue that we feel needs addressing. The whole celeb/private figure bashing was brought to our attention, maybe a year and a half ago. In that time we have enforced it when it was brought to our attention. It is nearly a non written rule among the community now, but non written rules don't hold up under scrutiny. We are aware of the general site wide policy but it really doesn't make it crystal clear.

In light of this, we have amended the AH charter to address this.

WindSock wrote: »

That's top of the pops, Micky. Thanks for your civil input and understanding of the issue highlighted.

Excellent work, you two. Very grown up. I hope we've all learned a civility lesson in modding/cmodding/adminning from this interaction.

WindSock

Pfft. You obviously just missed the post I'm after deleting...:pac:

TouchingVirus

Onixx wrote: »

Indeed. And the same two people jumping on WindSock to have a go at her giving feedback on the Feedback forum, and then the most vocal of the two pretending not to know what she's talking about when she calls them up on it. Do they feel some sort of duty to Boards.ie or something?

Since you're very clearly talking to me, I'll answer. I owe Boards.ie nothing, no "duty" nor anything like it.

Was I harsh/hostile in the beginning of the other thread? Yes, and I apologise to WindSock for that.

Was I harsh/hostile in the beginning of this thread? No, I was offering another suggestion since the initial thread ended up binned. There was no feigning innocence in my response. If you or Windsock called me on the first thread I'd agree I was hostile.

Would I highlight my exasperation at the OP differently next time? Yes.

Do I regret it? Not entirely. I stand by my opinion that the vagueness of the original post made it come across like a whinge. I still disagree on the very need for this thread - a PM to a Mod or Cat Mod asking them to highlight the policy better via a charter/sticky/announcement would most likely have led to a constructive conversation about this and a resolution much quicker than the month that it took.

Anybody who has spent any amount of time on this site knows that sometimes the first place to go if you would like something changed is directly to the people responsibly for fostering activity in the various sub-communities - the mods/cat mods.

There are many, many things wrong with this site and community. Some are small, some are more symptomatic of deeper issues. This is not a harmonious place, and feedback is almost never positive. There will be people who agree and who disagree with topics here, we're not all on the same page. I will continue to engage on here as I have done but in future I'll endeavour to leave out anything that is, or can be perceived as, hostile.

RUCKING FETARD

Thanks for that.:rolleyes:

Captain Darling

Where is all the white women at?

WindSock

TouchingVirus wrote: »

Since you're very clearly talking to me, I'll answer. I owe Boards.ie nothing, no "duty" nor anything like it.

Was I harsh/hostile in the beginning of the other thread? Yes, and I apologise to WindSock for that.

Was I harsh/hostile in the beginning of this thread? No, I was offering another suggestion since the initial thread ended up binned. There was no feigning innocence in my response. If you or Windsock called me on the first thread I'd agree I was hostile.

It is all one thread as far as I am concerned, after the other one being locked needlessly. But thank you for your apology and acknowledgement of the unnecessary hostility in this forum.

Would I highlight my exasperation at the OP differently next time? Yes.

Do I regret it? Not entirely. I stand by my opinion that the vagueness of the original post made it come across like a whinge. I still disagree on the very need for this thread - a PM to a Mod or Cat Mod asking them to highlight the policy better via a charter/sticky/announcement would most likely have led to a constructive conversation about this and a resolution much quicker than the month that it took.

Anybody who has spent any amount of time on this site knows that sometimes the first place to go if you would like something changed is directly to the people responsibly for fostering activity in the various sub-communities - the mods/cat mods.

Well that's where I disagree. I think change comes from feedback and a general consensus with discussing issues highlighted so the whole community can see and be involved, instead of a few PM's that may lead to nothing that no one knows about. Already there was some discussion on this thread about what is and isn't abuse, I think that's a good thing.

There are many, many things wrong with this site and community. Some are small, some are more symptomatic of deeper issues. This is not a harmonious place, and feedback is almost never positive. There will be people who agree and who disagree with topics here, we're not all on the same page. I will continue to engage on here as I have done but in future I'll endeavour to leave out anything that is, or can be perceived as, hostile.

Indeed, one of the biggest problems that I have with the site is users feeling they can't start a thread in Feedback without being shot down for it and having their thread locked with a curt reply as a garnishing. It defeats the purpose of this website...it being a discussion based one.