A&A Feedback

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

Summary - on the sole basis of your post, you have misrepresented end-of-the-road once, end-of-the-road has made three false claims, each of of which has been rebutted adequately and so far as I can see, end-of-the-road has not repeated any of the false claims, so it seems fair to assume that end-of-the-road has accepted the rebuttals. And end-of-the-road has ignored one reasonable question (was it repeated?) On the basis of what's here, I'm afraid that I don't see that this requires any major moderator intervention

I did not misrepresent end-of-the-road. The difference between "all abortion is murder" and "abortion is murder" is so semantically irrelevant that end-of-the-road themselves never tried to use the difference to defend themselves against the original accusation. As you point out, even when Cabaal repeated the more general accusation that end-of-the-road said "abortion is murder", end-of-the-road just reasserted that it was murder. It wasn't until over two weeks after Cabaals post that he tried to claim he was taken out of context and ohnonotgmails post showed that wasn't the case.

And, btw, he is still repeating those other claims weeks after you disproving them:

end of the road wrote: »

those individuals were responsible for their own actions and behaviour and they don't change the fact that the [No] campaign was ultimately factual.

end of the road wrote: »

[the No Campaign made] a fantastic case as in it consisted of nothing but facts and reality, thousands of factually accurate posters, appeals to reality and the facts, and millions in legitimately given donations from philanthropists who want to protect the unborn and who care for both them and their mothers.

So to summarise-
- He made a false claim about never saying abortion was murder, was proven wrong and still makes those claims.
- He made a false claim about the No campaign being truthful and factual, was proven wrong and still makes those claims.
- And ohnonotgmails reasonable question was only asked once because end-of-the-road only once tried to make the (false) claim that he was taken out of context.

ohnonotgmail

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I did not misrepresent end-of-the-road. The difference between "all abortion is murder" and "abortion is murder" is so semantically irrelevant that end-of-the-road themselves never tried to use the difference to defend themselves against the original accusation. As you point out, even when Cabaal repeated the more general accusation that end-of-the-road said "abortion is murder", end-of-the-road just reasserted that it was murder. It wasn't until over two weeks after Cabaals post that he tried to claim he was taken out of context and ohnonotgmails post showed that wasn't the case.

And, btw, he is still repeating those other claims weeks after you disproving them:



So to summarise-
- He made a false claim about never saying abortion was murder, was proven wrong and still makes those claims.
- He made a false claim about the No campaign being truthful and factual, was proven wrong and still makes those claims.
- And ohnonotgmails reasonable question was only asked once because end-of-the-road only once tried to make the (false) claim that he was taken out of context.

I was going to post something about the mod reply yesterday but i didnt bother. It is clear to me that they have no intention of addressing the problem.

Mark Hamill

I get that we don't want discussions to fall into emotive accusations being thrown around, it won't make for good discussions. Even if someone out and out lies, it is better for the discussion if that is dealt with by reporting the post and under the things like soapboxing and trolling, which it generally falls under anyway.

I also get that it is great that this forum is as open and tolerant as possible of different opinions, posters and posting styles, even if they might be annoying. But we shouldn't be reluctant of calling out negative posters and negative posting styles for fear of losing our appearance of total openness. This issue comes up not irregularly in this forum because our openness constantly skirts the paradox of tolerance. Just because they might decry oppression, doesn't mean we must tolerate those who come here only to oppress discussion.

robarmstrong

So what happens now if a certain poster has been highlighted as a trouble-maker? Surely if they cannot contribute constructively to a discussion they should have that privilege removed, correct?

As they have been outed as lying, making false claims and not engaging in good faith repeatedly.

Why not address the problem?

King Mob

robarmstrong wrote: »

So what happens now if a certain poster has been highlighted as a trouble-maker? Surely if they cannot contribute constructively to a discussion they should have that privilege removed, correct?

As they have been outed as lying, making false claims and not engaging in good faith repeatedly.

Why not address the problem?

I brought this point up in July and was told that a mild overhaul of the forum charter was going to be done to address posting styles like endoftheroad's.

Apparently that went nowhere.

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

Apparently that went nowhere.

Your friendly moderators team did point out a number of charter-compliant ways of dealing with annoying posters last time this issue came up during the summer, but these suggestions were not added to the forum charter for a variety of reasons.

Given that the issue has come up again, I posted the following clarification earlier on today and trust that this explains what posters can do to limit the ability of evasive posters to disrupt orderly discussion:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108404644&postcount=8401

robindch wrote:

What is an actionable item is a poster who makes an unambiguous claim of fact, who is then asked to support the claim with evidence, and who then fails to do so within some time limit (a week seems reasonable). While it's not in the charter, your friendly moderators are willing to step in at that point and explain to the poster who made the original claim, that he/she has not been able to sustain it, and the claim therefore lapses and will not be allowed make that now-unsubstantiated claim again under threat of some moderatorly action.

Please note that for the moderators to be able to judge whether a claim has been substantiated, the moderators need much more than a complaint of the form "poster X is not answering a question about Y".

Instead, the mods need to see a link to one or more posts in which some poster makes a clear and unambiguous claim, then the mods need to see links to one or posts with a request to substantiate the claim, and then they need to see either a) links to posts by the original claimant which avoids or otherwise fails to substantiate the claim, or b) a thread with a clear absence of supporting evidence provided by the original claimant. Then, the mods have enough to work with and will be happy to step in and mark the original claim, and any subsequent instance of it, as unsubstantiated. Repeated postings of unsubstantiated claims will be treated as soap-boxing and will be treated with according to point (3) in the forum charter.

The above is under discussion with the moderator team who hope to have a resolution of this issue complete within the next few days.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

Your friendly moderators team did point out a number of charter-compliant ways of dealing with annoying posters last time this issue came up during the summer, but these suggestions were not added to the forum charter for a variety of reasons.

Given that the issue has come up again, I posted the following clarification earlier on today and trust that this explains what posters can do to limit the ability of evasive posters to disrupt orderly discussion:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108404644&postcount=8401

The above is under discussion with the moderator team who hope to have a resolution of this issue complete within the next few days.

Why should posters limit the ability of evasive posters to disrupt orderly discussion?

Why can't yano, moderators, as moderators - limit the ability of those disrupting orderly discussion? It's kind of what you're volunteering to do, so why not just do it?

Why the whole song and dance about it? There is a poster that does nothing but disrupt orderly discussion.

Do something about it, it's honestly that simple.

uptherebels

robindch wrote:

What is an actionable item is a poster who makes an unambiguous claim of fact, who is then asked to support the claim with evidence, and who then fails to do so within some time limit (a week seems reasonable). While it's not in the charter, your friendly moderators are willing to step in at that point and explain to the poster who made the original claim, that he/she has not been able to sustain it, and the claim therefore lapses and will not be allowed make that now-unsubstantiated claim again under threat of some moderatorly action.

Please note that for the moderators to be able to judge whether a claim has been substantiated, the moderators need much more than a complaint of the form "poster X is not answering a question about Y".

Instead, the mods need to see a link to one or more posts in which some poster makes a clear and unambiguous claim, then the mods need to see links to one or posts with a request to substantiate the claim, and then they need to see either a) links to posts by the original claimant which avoids or otherwise fails to substantiate the claim, or b) a thread with a clear absence of supporting evidence provided by the original claimant. Then, the mods have enough to work with and will be happy to step in and mark the original claim, and any subsequent instance of it, as unsubstantiated. Repeated postings of unsubstantiated claims will be treated as soap-boxing and will be treated with according to point (3) in the forum charter.

just for some clarification -
point a above
" links to posts by the original claimant which avoids or otherwise fails to substantiate the claim"
So after providing
"the mods need to see a link to one or more posts in which some poster makes a clear and unambiguous claim, then the mods need to see links to one or posts with a request to substantiate the claim"
point a means that the poster needs to make the claim again?
needs to say they aren't going to substantiate?
or just keeps posting the thread without acknowledging the request for clarification but without repeating the claim while not retracting either?

robindch

uptherebels wrote: »

just for some clarification - [...] point a means that the poster needs to make the claim again? needs to say they aren't going to substantiate? or just keeps posting the thread without acknowledging the request for clarification but without repeating the claim while not retracting either?

Nope, some poster makes a claim, somebody then calls out the claimant on the claim, the claimant then fails one way or another to substantiate the claim over some fairly short period of time, somebody then reports the post to a moderator who can step in and adjudicate on whether the point has been substantiated or not. An unsubstantiated claim lapses and if the claimant subsequently repeats the unsubstantiated claim, the moderator can take action. That action could be one or more of - delete the post containing the unsubstantiated claim, edit the post, card the poster, ask for substantiating evidence and so on.

It's a little involved, but it does provide a means, within the general charter and within the bounds of reasonable discussion, for posters who feel that other posters are unfairly making unsubstantiated claims to take some action to reduce them, without the moderators needing to judge upon the facts concerned (which could be a major moderator timesink).

I hope this clarifies things.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

Soapboxing certainly is against the forum rules, however no forum poster has yet complained about it, so you will understand that your friendly moderators cannot action a report which has not been made.

Complaints against a particular poster and their posting style (so yes, people have complained about it).
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108276072&postcount=8180

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107430776&postcount=1230

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106846942&postcount=4375

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106473657&postcount=3731

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105999135&postcount=1395

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105989323&postcount=1339

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107606471&postcount=7791

Times the particular user was warned/threadbanned for utilizing the same posting style they continue to use in latest discussions -

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106865192&postcount=4424

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106522534&postcount=3835

So as you can see, people have actually complained about it, there was action taken and instead of actually changing their posting style, they continued to post the same until threadbanned by that particular mod. The poster then simply went to another thread related to the topic and began the cycle anew.

So there's evidence of complaints against that particular posting style, reports against that particular posting style and moderator action initially taken to prevent that posting style, yet somehow it is still happening, will something be done with this? There's plenty more examples if needed.

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

Complaints against a particular poster and their posting style (so yes, people have complained about it).

I sent you a polite PM yesterday morning at 00:42 to which you sent a stroppy reply for reasons which are not clear to me, beyond at least, your irritation that another poster would not be subject to moderator action without due process.

Please reread my PM carefully and get back to me privately if you have any questions about the procedure outlined in that PM. This topic is closed in this feedback thread.

thanks.

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

I sent you a polite PM yesterday morning at 00:42 to which you sent a stroppy reply for reasons which are not clear to me, beyond at least, your irritation that another poster would not be subject to moderator action without due process.

Please reread my PM carefully and get back to me privately if you have any questions about the procedure outlined in that PM. This topic is closed in this feedback thread.

thanks.

How about actually investigating the complaints made? You declare the topic closed but you haven't actually done anything.

robindch

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How about actually investigating the complaints made? You declare the topic closed but you haven't actually done anything.

I've declared the topic closed in public from robarmstrong who, were it not Christmas this week, would probably have earned more than a card for his/her textbook incivility. The topic is not closed from robarmstrong in private as requested, and neither is it closed from other posters in public - that last point should have made clearer above.

For the sake of clarity:

• Being a pain-in-the-neck poster is not against the forum charter. If you find somebody's posts to be intolerably annoying, boards offers the 'ignore' facility which will hide posts from the selected poster.
• One poster misinterpreting another poster's posts is not against the forum charter. If misinterpretation happens regularly, then it could be possible that the first poster was intentionally or unintentionally unclear, just as it could be possible that the second poster is intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreting the first. If a poster misinterprets a well-phrased clarification of a post which misinterprets a well-phrased point, then a mod can step in where a clear report is made which includes a link to each post (the point, the misinterpretation, the clarification and the second misinterpretation). Please note that your friendly mod team will not read through large numbers of posts in order to find somebody's problem. If a poster has a problem with another poster, it must be documented in a fashion which makes it possible to adjudicate upon within the bounds of the charter.
• While soap-boxing (the repetition of one or more common tropes, usually in the same tedious fashion) is against the forum charter, repeatedly making similar points in response to similar issues is not. This applies equally to both sides of the discussion.
• Yes, there are posters who engage in troll-like or other borderline, contra-charter behaviour and it is usually difficult to adjudicate fairly. If you find yourself to be somebody who gets endlessly riled by one poster, then it really is best to put them on ignore, go grab a coffee and move on. Boards does not really include much system-level support to help deal with borderline trolls and the mods have to fall back upon the wider community for help here.

Hotblack Desiato

robarmstrong wrote: »

So as you can see, people have actually complained about it, there was action taken and instead of actually changing their posting style, they continued to post the same until threadbanned by that particular mod. The poster then simply went to another thread related to the topic and began the cycle anew.

I agree with what you're saying, but quoting posts from a forum where the posting of unevidenced nonsensical claims is specifically approved of by its charter isn't relevant to your case here.

robindch wrote: »

Being a pain-in-the-neck poster is not against the forum charter. If you find somebody's posts to be intolerably annoying, boards offers the 'ignore' facility which will hide posts from the selected poster.

How many posters in a forum does it take who find a poster a "pain in the neck" before they morph into a troll?

One poster misinterpreting another poster's posts is not against the forum charter.

Misrepresentation of another poster's posts however is trolling, whether it's once or consistently.

The ignore function is all very well but I consider the advocation of it by moderators as a form of moral weakness, an admission of failure. Of course moderators themselves cannot use it as they cannot moderate posters they ignore, so it's a classic case of "do as I say, but not as I do." is it not? I would regard the ignore function as useful for those with whom one has a fundamental disagreement, but it's not intended to be a method of dealing with trolls, otherwise why bother having moderators at all?

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

How many posters in a forum does it take who find a poster a "pain in the neck" before they morph into a troll?

I don't know, but it would be interesting to understand what limits might reasonably be put on it - 25%, 50% of topic-relevant posters? At what point does that then become mob rule, especially if the poster concerned might actually make valid points which are not to the liking of the majority? That's echo-chamber territory which isn't a good place to go either.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Misrepresentation of another poster's posts however is trolling, whether it's once or consistently.

Misinterpretation can be accidental while a judgement of misrepresentation requires sure knowledge of the motives of the writer, which is something one can never be sure of. Hence the point I made above that the first misinterpretation of a given point can be accepted as misinterpretation. While a subsequent misinterpretation of the same point, after a clear explanation has been given, certainly can be construed as misrepresentation and that's something that the forum mods can step in to adjudicate upon.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The ignore function is all very well but I consider the advocation of it by moderators as a form of moral weakness, an admission of failure.

I certainly agree that, politically, it amounts to a failure to enter into a mutually fruitful discussion - either on the part of the writer to write, or the reader to read. Note that some people write to sermonize, just as others read to reinforce their prejudices - neither are interested in "discussion" which (IMHO) is what this forum is all about.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I would regard the ignore function as useful for those with whom one has a fundamental disagreement, but it's not intended to be a method of dealing with trolls, otherwise why bother having moderators at all?

Agreed. See above for how the mods can reasonably deal with misinterpretations/misrepresentations within the limits of the charter. I can certainly add this to the forum charter if this clarification would help.

ohnonotgmail

I find it hilarious that EOTR always thanks Robinchs posts. That is top level work.

Mark Hamill

So that new procedure for mods to deal with unsubstantiated claims by soap-boxing posters was put in the charter 3 months ago, with a note at the end that it would be implemented for a few months to see how it goes, so is it time for a review?
It doesn't appear to have had a big effect on the problem it was devised to address or to even have been enacted on many times, but then again as a user I can't see how many times it wasn't even reported properly so it's hard to measure it's success.


I do have some faults with the bit at the end, namely this bit:

Please note that just as only moderators can adjudicate, for example, on whether another poster is trolling, only moderators can adjudicate on whether a claim has been substantiated, and therefore, whether a poster is soap-boxing. This means that posters are not permitted to each other as soap-boxers, trolls and so on - either before, during or after an adjudication. See point (1) of the charter above. Likewise, one poster should not allege that another poster is lying since a claim of lying implies an intent to deceive, and no person other than the second poster themselves can ever know what their intent might have been at the moment the claim was made.

I agree that simply calling someone or some post trolling, soapboxing or lying is not good for the site. At the very least, it is just emotive and is going to result in bickering at the expensive of discussion. However the logic at the end of that paragraph is seriously flawed. If no-one can say 100% that someone is lying, then how can anyone say with 100% they are soap-boxing (lying because no intent for genuine discussion) or trolling (lying because intent is to inflame)? Mods do this all the time, so it is possible in certain circumstances.
And the reason I bring this up is that it appears that this logic is making it harder to get rid of soap-boxers. It seems like way too much leniency is given to soap-boxers under the assumption that their poorly- or weasel- worded claims don't actually mean what every other poster on the forum took them to mean.
Again, I agree that posters just calling other posters liars or soap-boxers or trollers won't be conductive to discussion either, but not acting on it when people do soap-box (or troll or lie) is only going to kill discussion. Even if you think they deserve the leniency and the benefit of the doubt, if their posting style repeatedly has nearly every other poster assuming they mean one thing, but they actually mean another very slightly different thing (which they can't bother to even explain), then there is a problem with their posting style that needs intervention for the sake of continued discussion in the forum.

That leads into a suggestion that I've seen that I strongly disagree with: the notion that ultimately posters should use the "ignore" function instead of these kinds of posts being addressed either way (recent mod example here specifically mentioning posting styles). This is a discussion forum, not facebook, ignoring posters is not conductive to discussion and I see it as a complete abdication of responsibilities for mods to suggest that users should use the "ignore" function rather than actually fix the issues of soap boxing (a poster making claims but not supporting them when asked to) or trolling (a poster constantly using weasel words to re-interpret their original claim to pretend contradiction isn't valid) that leads them to suggest it. To put it simply, if we are ultimately going to be told to ignore someone, then why even bother have mods when you can just ignore everything?


We had a problem a while back of a few posters nit-picking posts to death and just killing discussions and this forum because of it, and it was only solved when those posters were directly dealt with.
We know seem to have a problem with posters getting away making massive claims and not having to substantiate them properly and the softly softly approach doesn't seem to be helping.

robindch

....... wrote: »

OK - the posts on this thread alone, where the poster has made many unsubstantiated claims, and in a very recent post where they claimed that they had said something they hadnt. Are you really saying that you cant see it?

Your moderators would like posters to substantiate the claims they're making, ideally in line with the procedure which has been put in place to deal with this type of claim. So far, almost nobody's managed to do this - either suggesting that the procedure is unworkable or the claims cannot be substantiated. Since some posters have made the effort and run the procedure, your moderator team is happy that the procedure can work.

Your friendly moderators are not, however, going to micromanage debate to the extent of doing the work of debating for people taking part in it, nor are the moderator going to evaluate every truth-claim since the abortion thread(s) are full of claim and counter-claim - that's what the discussion is about.

If some poster feels that some other posters is violating the rules of polite discussion, then the onus is upon the first poster to substantiate the claim so that the issue can be dealt with in line with the forum rules - which I hope are clear enough.

.......

robindch wrote: »

If some poster feels that some other posters is violating the rules of polite discussion, then the onus is upon the first poster to substantiate the claim so that the issue can be dealt with in line with the forum rules - which I hope are clear enough.

Is avoiding substantiating claims not violating the rules of polite discussion?

I cannot point to posts that dont exist, and they dont exist because the poster in question ignores all requests to substantiate their claims.

What exactly would you like to be produced to "prove" this to you? Its all there in the thread - the evidence is before all of us?

robarmstrong

But the procedure has been deemed unworkable, as there is a note from the user Mark Hamill in the A&A feedback thread from a few weeks ago that hasn't been acknowledged.

This isn't the place to be discussing moderator action in-thread so I suggest we take a discussion there, but there is an unanswered post (with some valid points & feedback) from a user that isn't addressed or acknowledged (at least visibly).

It's a bit silly to ask us to do the leg work for the procedure but not openly acknowledge or address a query relating to it in the A&A feedback thread, it implies that again (how a lot of us feel) the "friendly moderators" aren't too pushed on responding or seeking an amicable resolution.

robindch

....... wrote: »

I cannot point to posts that dont exist, and they dont exist because the poster in question ignores all requests to substantiate their claims. What exactly would you like to be produced to "prove" this to you? Its all there in the thread - the evidence is before all of us?

It's all there, clearly documented in the forum procedure, specifically, the sixth paragraph which I'm going to include here since I'm not fully sure how many people have actually read it:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108564307&postcount=6

robindch wrote:

For the moderators to be able to judge whether a claim has been substantiated, the moderators need to see more than a complaint of the form "poster X is not answering a question about Y". Instead, the moderators need to see a) a link to a claimant's original claim; b) a subsequent link, within a short period of time, to a post in which another poster requests the claimant substantiate the claim; c) Then, either c.1) links to posts by the original claimant which fail to substantiate the claim, or c.2) a link to a thread with a clear absence of supporting evidence provided by the original claimant. It would be best if any report concerning an allegedly unsubstantiated claim would contain all three links (a, b and c.1 or c.2), so that moderators have all the information they need to adjudicate within a single place.

It really does help here if people ask a simple question and politely follow-up for a meaningful response. What tends to happen instead is that a poster makes a claim, the poster is asked to provide substantiating evidence, the poster doesn't, then people start making unhelpful, counter-charter comments, thereby losing whatever high moral ground upon which they might have believed themselves perched.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It doesn't appear to have had a big effect on the problem it was devised to address or to even have been enacted on many times, but then again as a user I can't see how many times it wasn't even reported properly so it's hard to measure it's success.

Off the top of my head, I'd say that perhaps five or six posters have tried to follow the charter update. The remainder have failed to follow the procedure - either by sending in links to posts which do not say what the poster claims they are saying, or by providing a mass of useless information, bickering unpleasantness or much else besides, which is impossible to work through.

Of the five or six who've tried to follow the procedure, two have managed it correctly, sufficient that a moderator has been able to find in one direction or another. I'm a little surprised that what seems to me to be a fairly simple procedure seems to be so hard to follow - find a claim, find a request to substantiate that claim, find where that claim wasn't substantiated, put all three links into a post and submit it. Can somebody please let me know the point at this becomes too hard to do? It's no different to doing it in a discussion.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If no-one can say 100% that someone is lying, then how can anyone say with 100% they are soap-boxing (lying because no intent for genuine discussion) or trolling (lying because intent is to inflame)? Mods do this all the time, so it is possible in certain circumstances.

That is a splendidly jesuitical point, for which I thank you, and as the charter update makes clear - moderators reserve the right to decide that a poster is trolling or soap-boxing so that the moderator can apply the charter to deal with those circumstances. If the moderator can't make such a decision, then the charter can't be applied.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Even if you think they deserve the leniency and the benefit of the doubt, if their posting style repeatedly has nearly every other poster assuming they mean one thing, but they actually mean another very slightly different thing (which they can't bother to even explain), then there is a problem with their posting style that needs intervention for the sake of continued discussion in the forum.

That's a fair point in the case where posters on one side of a discussion are behaving with civility and sticking closely to the rules of polite debate, and where the other side is not. Unfortunately, in the case of the abortion thread, both sides are committing - as I mentioned earlier today - the same sins, though to varying degrees. In such a case, it's unfair for the moderator team to bollock one side without equally bollocking the other, or to demand that the moderators step in and micro-manage one side of the debate beyond what's been outlined in the charter update, without equally micro-managing the other.

The creationism thread is an example of where there's a preponderance of civil, charter-compliant posters on one side of the discussion, and a tiny number of posters on the other who irritate the first group. In such a case, the second group are restricted to one thread and so long as civility (if not accuracy) reigns, they are permitted to post as they wish and other posters can engage or not as they wish.

The same understanding is being applied to the abortion thread.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

To put it simply, if we are ultimately going to be told to ignore someone, then why even bother have mods when you can just ignore everything?

I'm entirely with you in connection with the ignore function - it's really not what this site is about. Better instead to take down another poster's ideas by patiently deconstructing them and where some poster isn't behaving in line with the rules of polite debate, then document this clearly so that the moderator team can do something within the remit of the charter.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We had a problem a while back of a few posters nit-picking posts to death and just killing discussions and this forum because of it, and it was only solved when those posters were directly dealt with. We know seem to have a problem with posters getting away making massive claims and not having to substantiate them properly and the softly softly approach doesn't seem to be helping.

It's not a softly-softly approach - your moderator team will step in and follow the charter where a complaint has been made in line with it. Where posters aren't prepared to do the footwork involved with following the charter and prefer instead to get the moderator to do their homework for them, well, as above, your moderators aren't here to micro-manage the discussion - we're here to apply the rules.

.......

I still dont understand why the mods cant simply moderate rather than implement this farcical procedure that has proven unworkable?

The poster in question is behaving this way deliberately to shut down rational discussion - and he has succeeded AGAIN - because here we are yet again, with a mod defending him and the thread gone dead.

Hats off, this poster has cracked how to effectively troll this site.

ohnonotgmail

I reported a poster yesterday for soapboxing. nothing was done about it. Why is that?

robindch

....... wrote: »

I still dont understand why the mods cant simply moderate rather than implement this farcical procedure that has proven unworkable?

The procedure is easily workable and it's a matter of some considerable mystery to your friendly moderators why some posters on one side of a debate are unable to post three simple links to document clearly an issue which the same posters claim is universal to the point of blocking all reasonable debate.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I reported a poster yesterday for soapboxing. nothing was done about it. Why is that?

One link does not a soap-box make.

I would suggest at least three posts over a period of a week or two, ideally where the issue is challenged and where no meaningful response is forthcoming.

Also, one of your friendly moderators spent quite some time yesterday replying to other issues related to the abortion thread and did not have time to read potentially hundreds of messages in the thread in order to establish how often the single reported issue actually occurred, how and where it was challenged and what the nature of the response might have been to come to a reasonable assessment of whether the single reported claim actually did amount to a broader issue of soap-boxing.

Again, some footwork by complainants would help enormously here and your moderators stand ready to act, once there's something unambiguous to work with.

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

The procedure is easily workable and it's a matter of some considerable mystery to your friendly moderators why some posters on one side of a debate are unable to post three simple links to document clearly an issue which the same posters claim is universal to the point of blocking all reasonable debate.One link does not a soap-box make.

I would suggest at least three posts over a period of a week or two, ideally where the issue is challenged and where no meaningful response is forthcoming.

Also, one of your friendly moderators spent quite some time yesterday replying to other issues related to the abortion thread and did not have time to read potentially hundreds of messages in the thread in order to establish how often the single reported issue actually occurred, how and where it was challenged and what the nature of the response might have been to come to a reasonable assessment of whether the single reported claim actually did amount to a broader issue of soap-boxing.

Again, some footwork by complainants would help enormously here and your moderators stand ready to act, once there's something unambiguous to work with.

And again you expect users to do your job for you. There was more than 1 instance hence the soapboxing. i do know what soapboxing is. And there were not 100's of posts for mods to wade through. There are 70 posts between the first time the made the claim and now.

.......

I give up.

The evidence is all there on the thread but if the mods refuse to see it then whats the point in reporting it?

Carry on dear poster who seems to be allowed to behave whatever way they want site wide - your protections continue.

robarmstrong

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck, and multiple people proclaim it's a duck well then... it's a duck.

The fact of the matter is the process is a tad ridiculous and really over-saturated, what if the offender has someone on the ignore list and they are requesting them to clarify their point? There were numerous requests for clarification of a particular user's claim in the abortion thread, including several of myself that seemed to go completely under the radar and the user was allowed to continue on their merry way, unchallenged.

I think the posting style, rather than the user needs to be addressed. If I say something contradictory and someone challenges me on it, proving the contradiction between my statements, I should be bound to acknowledging the contradiction or explaining a potential change in stance rather than simply stating "that's not what I said" (cue, the "I never said abortion is murder" debacle where such an individual who was consistently saying they never said such a thing, was proven wrong and flat out did not acknowledge the wrongdoing because it would "derail the thread" and deemed it "irrelevant" to the discussion).

I completely understand and appreciate that minds change, opinions can be reformed, but a flat out denial of your own contradictions when they are in the view of an entire public forum to see confirms the soap-boxing posting style being utilized. I also would like to raise that the onus should be on the accused to defend their point coherently, rather than simply "no, it isn't", or "no, I did not say that".

I welcome an open, intelligent and articulate discussion between both sides of the debate, I do not want an echo chamber (Outlaw Pete & please advise being 2 posters in particular who were able to hold reasonable discussions and debate valid points) as echo chambers are useless, there's no valuable discussion.

There is no valuable discussion going on in that thread due to a certain posting style, and if multiple people are complaining about it then a discussion needs to be had with whomever is utilizing that posting style/strategy as it detracts from the value of what people actually have to say.

It is perfectly fine to debate. It is not perfectly fine to debate if you are not willing to explain your stance, hide/refuse exposure of your contradictions and ignore those who challenge your stance. That really is unacceptable and a higher standard of posting needs to be emphasized.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

One link does not a soap-box make.

I would suggest at least three posts over a period of a week or two, ideally where the issue is challenged and where no meaningful response is forthcoming.

The problem with that is the time frame and the amount of editing required, where a lot of soap-boxing on this forum tends to be very scattergun in nature. You get a bunch of similar posts containing unsupported opinion being put forward as objective fact which are challenged, the challenge ignored and the point repeated. For example;

recedite wrote: »

The family union, with a mother and a father, still being the most ideal situation in which to rear a child, regardless of the many other (less ideal) kinds of situation out there.

smacl wrote: »

Why, specifically, is a same sex marriage a less ideal situation to raise a child than a marriage between a man and a woman?

recedite wrote: »

Because 2 mothers or 2 fathers, instead of one of each.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You have just defined what SSM is. you have not said why it is less ideal.

recedite wrote: »

Assuming the kids are likely to turn out heterosexual, then they are better off being reared in a heterosexual family unit.
Because kids need to be able to pick up life experience and family values from their parents. It is also important that they receive a broader education at school, in addition to the cultural values of their own family unit.[/URL].

(Post trimmed for brevity)

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Your anecdote is fascinating. Any actual data? I remember having the same conversation at the time of the referendum and there was no data to suggest that heterosexual marriages were better in terms of childrens outcomes.

recedite wrote: »

Where would the data come from?
Which countries have been rearing kids within homosexual marriages over a statistically significant period of time? Bearing in mind the human lifespan of 90 years or so.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we have had at least one generation of kids raised by homosexual couples. Is that not enough?

King Mob wrote: »

Um, yes.

(Post trimmed for brevity but included a numerous relevant references)

smacl wrote: »

And what evidence do you have that the former is less ideal, i.e. that it leads to poorer outcomes for the children than the latter?

Again do you have any references to support that assertion or is it is simply your own unsupported opinion?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Any evidence for that?...

(Post trimmed, see link)

etc,etc,etc.... many more pages of similar repeated unsupported assertion over the course of a couple of days.

If this doesn't amount to soap-boxing I'm not sure what does. Putting a forensic breakdown of the posts into a sequence such as the above is time consuming. Surely if a poster lists the starting and ending post in a sequence a mod has more than enough to work with?

Similarly, are we to allow this forum to become a dumping ground for unsupported opinion? Of any forum, A&A should be able to distinguish between unsubstantiated belief and assertion supported by credible evidence.

nozzferrahhtoo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I find it hilarious that EOTR always thanks Robinchs posts. That is top level work.

Wasn't he told he would be carded if he did not stop doing that? Or did I dream that entirely?