A&A Feedback

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This is not some philosophical debate at arms length for me -this is my life and my family you are disparaging but not once did you seem to consider that real people with real lives were reading your biased and oft repeated unsupported opinion.

Lets be clear, I < did not discuss any individual cases> (as they say) so the only person bringing your personal life into this, is yourself.


I did not disparage anyone. Of course there are "real people" reading the threads. Who else would it be? Aside from the usual AI web-crawlers which generally don't take part in the debate.


That particular thread touched on some potentially sensitive issues, including gay parents, hetero parents of young adults who turn out to be gay, single parents, and children of a different ethnicity to their parents.


Everyone will have their own opinion on these issues, with some "real people" making more of an issue than they really should on one, and some others denying there is even an issue on another.


It could have been an interesting and respectful discussion, but instead it descended into farce and attempted no-platforming.



< In my opinion> which addendum I apparently must add at the end of all my posts from now on.

Strawberry1975

Keep on Rolling dubbies wayne

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Lets be clear, I < did not discuss any individual cases> (as they say) so the only person bringing your personal life into this, is yourself.


I did not disparage anyone. Of course there are "real people" reading the threads. Who else would it be? Aside from the usual AI web-crawlers which generally don't take part in the debate.


That particular thread touched on some potentially sensitive issues, including gay parents, hetero parents of young adults who turn out to be gay, single parents, and children of a different ethnicity to their parents.


Everyone will have their own opinion on these issues, with some "real people" making more of an issue than they really should on one, and some others denying there is even an issue on another.


It could have been an interesting and respectful , but instead it descended into farce and attempted no-platforming.



< In my opinion> which addendum I apparently must add at the end of all my posts from now on.

you disparaged every gay couple raising a child by claiming that they do a worse job than a heterosexual couple.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

< In my opinion> which addendum I apparently must add at the end of all my posts from now on.

Fortunately, your opinion says much more about you than those you address with it.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Lets be clear, I < did not discuss any individual cases> (as they say) so the only person bringing your personal life into this, is yourself.

What you do is worse. You spout judgements and prejudices from a position of imagined moral superiority and act as if they are facts. A judgement that portrays a wide and varied section of Irish society as being less than some 'ideal' because you do not agree with how they live their lives.

Now you are hiding behind a mealy mouthed attempt to weasel out of the repercussions of telling a fellow poster in this forum that they do not conform to some supposed 'ideal'. How would you like it if I attacked your 'lifestyle' over and over while presenting my statements as factual? I am sure there are aspects of your life that fall far short of what many would consider 'ideal'.


But I haven't mentioned you or your the way you live your life once - I have called you out on your attempts to justify and present your obvious homophobia as merely you being some advocate for an 'idea' family unit. For that is an attack on me so yes, it is personal.

All in the name of robust discussion naturally.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Fortunately, your opinion says much more about you than those you address with it.

That's your opinion.
Fortunately, we don't all have the same opinion, and fortunately you don't always get to shut down anyone who has a different opinion to yours.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

That's your opinion.
Fortunately, we don't all have the same opinion, and fortunately you don't always get to shut down anyone who has a different opinion to yours.

the difference here is that your opinion is born out of ignorance

Timberrrrrrrr

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the difference here is that your opinion is born out of ignorance

For some, the moral high ground is the only place ave they will ever know. They think they can look down on others yet will ignore the abuses by the very ones they look up to!

Strawberry1975

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the difference here is that your opinion is born out of ignorance

Well said

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

I did not disparage anyone.

Actually you disparaged lots of people.

smacl

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I think it's very funny and look forward to more like it!

I also think you're trolling given that you complain about Islamophobia yet thanked smacl's post above which has Mo's image!

pauldla wrote: »

So depictions of the Prophet are uncontroversial or even permissible when being used to poke fun at other religions? Is this from one of the more obscure Hadith..?

Glad to see I'm not the only one here to think that this latest member to the A&A is a troll account. Looks to me like it has been set up specifically to polarise opinion against Islam by taking it to the extreme? Makes me wonder who'd do such a thing?

nozzferrahhtoo

robindch wrote: »

A clear, succinct report which reports a single post for a single alleged offence and provides evidence to back up this claim is likely to receive a quick reply and possibly some action.

That was not, however, what you asked for. Your exact words at the time were

"Anyway, as above, soapboxing is a cardable offence so perhaps somebody could report a few instances of that? "

I gave you 100% exactly what you asked for, purely and solely because you asked for it. And I did it in a methodical easy to follow fashion too which you are more than welcome to repost here as a post if you wish.

I would not even have made the report or in fact any report at all were it not for your direct request that someone do so as I simply did not care enough to do so. But you asked for help and I decided to offer it.

So when a single post is reported and nothing gets done because you clearly and openly ask for "a few" and then "a few" are reported as per your request and nothing gets done because you want "a single" report on "a single" post...... I can certainly understand why there is a lot of frustration developing in your user base here. The procedures are seeming a little like a "whack-a-mole" game at this point with a new opposite request popping up every time another one is dealt with.

robindch

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Every interaction with A&A mods either on this thread on in A&A has been a disappointment.

The forum charter is enforced by the moderators as it's written here - if you don't like it, please feel free to post elsewhere.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Its a sad situation where the single most active thread in a discussion forum is the one in which the surviving posters are constantly calling for increased levels of censorship and no-platforming against each other.

That is a rather disingenuous reading of the situation by far. While I think the mods are getting a couple of things wrong at the moment, they are trying. And what they are trying to do is the exact opposite of what you describe here.

Rather than trying to censor or no-platform people such as yourself, the goal appears to be the exact opposite. To actually get users to not just express their opinions but defend and substantiate and discuss them, and the reasoning behind them. Very little of which you have actually done.

Trying to get you to talk about your position MORE is the exact opposite of censorship and no-platforming. It is demanding a minimum standard of discourse for using that platform to ensure you engage in the discussion honestly and in good faith. You claim you are "never afraid of robust discussion" but you simply dodged and ignored all discussion coming from users like me on the issue with some very lame cop out remarks to smoke screen that with.

As I said I think the rules and environment on this forum are in flux and the mods are trying, quite hard, and openly, and in good faith. I just think they have more to do and they are currently getting it a bit wrong. I have strong faith and confidence they will get there in the end however.

But the great thing about online forums is the discussion never really ends. The thread and your posts and my posts are still there, and if you ever find ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to support the assertions you made in that thread I am all ears. But as I have explored the studies and data on that subject quite extensively all I can say is.... take your time. You'll need it.

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

The forum charter is enforced by the moderators as it's written here - if you don't like it, please feel free to post elsewhere.

well that really sums it up doesn't it.

Just to clarify what i mean by this in case you decide to take me up wrong again robindch. A poster disagrees with how moderation is undertaken in a feedback thread and they are told to basically f*ck off. Defeats the purpose of a feedback thread if your reposnse is like it or lump it.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

IMO, there's a difference between expressing an opinion, and making a statement of fact (a truth claim, if you like).

Yes indeed, and it's a difference which everybody else, forum mods included, fully accepts.

So, when you're making some broad claim of fact - for example, that "The family union, with a mother and a father, still being the most ideal situation in which to rear a child" - you should expect that somebody might ask you to provide some evidence to support your assertion. If you do not, then you will be carded for soap-boxing if you repeat this assertion without good, ideally sufficient, supporting evidence.

If, on the other hand, you declare "I believe that I, recedite, am the Queen of Abyssinia", then well, somebody might call you out on it, but the best they can do is to ask you to substantiate your belief which you're free or not to do (though it would be nice if you did, by for example, including a picture of you in your ceremonial garb). Your beliefs are your own and a simple statement of them will be accepted as adequately documenting them.

recedite wrote: »

Its a sad situation where the single most active thread in a discussion forum is the one in which the surviving posters are constantly calling for increased levels of censorship and no-platforming against each other.

Not sad at all.

Over the last few years, there have been many instances in broader society where one group of individuals have tried to the views of other groups, either by no-platforming them as students' unions seem to enjoy doing, or simply by shouting at them or intimidating them, as in the example of Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, a vile, racist thug for whom you appear to have unbounded respect.

Being an upstanding part of society, it's entirely to be expected that the same kind of no-platforming/shout-down will appear here in A+A. And it'll be dealt with by the most liberal interpretation of the forum charter possible, consistent with the view that the liberality of the forum will not be unduly undermined. Some people expect otherwise and that's to be expected too. There are plenty of other forums out there and some no doubt will be more to their liking.

Back to your case - please ensure that you distinguish between beliefs and facts. The former do not need substantiation while the latter do.

robindch

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

A poster disagrees with how moderation is undertaken in a feedback thread and they are told to basically f*ck off.

Nope. I've replied to you politely concerning how things work around here and most or all of of your replies suggest to me that you've not read my replies. If that's the case, then yes, you're certainly better off posting elsewhere.

If, on the other hand, you'd like to work within the bounds of the charter and how it's implemented here in practice, then please stick around and take part - you'd be more than welcome.

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

Nope. I've replied to you politely concerning how things work around here and most or all of of your replies suggest to me that you've not read my replies. If that's the case, then yes, you're certainly better off posting elsewhere.

If, on the other hand, you'd like to work within the bounds of the charter and how it's implemented here in practice, then please stick around and take part - you'd be more than welcome.

what is the point of a feedback thread when you ignore the feedback and say the charter is the charter?

robindch

smacl wrote: »

To clarify, if a poster makes the same claim at any point in the future in any thread, is that single new post considered soap-boxing until such time as the original claim is supported to an acceptable standard?

Yes, once a mod has adjudicated that a claim has not been substantiated, then the claimant cannot repeat it (or other similar or related claims) without risking a carding for soap-boxing. The claimant can choose to provide evidence to substantiate their claim at any point and if it's deemed to be sufficient, then the claimant can repeat their claim, though not excessively so lest they risk being carded for the more traditional meaning of soap-boxing.

See the charter update:

Charter wrote:

If the moderator judges that the claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to defend the claim, or if the claimant has simply avoided or ignored the request to support, then the moderators will make an inthread note that the claim has not been substantiated. In such a case, the claimant is not allowed to repeat the claim, unless it's accompanied by the supporting evidence which was missing the first time around (in which case, if the post is reported, the the moderator might adjudicate the claim as still unsubstantiated). If the claimant repeats an unsubstantiated claim, and another poster reports the repetition, then the moderator reserves the right to deem that 'soap-boxing' within the meaning of point 3 of the forum charter and the right to take any action deemed necessary including repeating the request for substantiating evidence, deleting or editing the post containing the now-unsubstantiated claim, carding or banning the poster and so on.

smacl wrote: »

If not can we make this the case as it achieves two things. Firstly, it prevents a poster soap-boxing a point, waiting for things to cool down when warned, and then getting right back up on the same soap box. Secondly it makes the often time consuming task of reporting such activity worthwhile in the first instance in the knowledge that the point cannot be raised again by that poster until such time as they've properly supported it.

As above, that's already the case - thanks for the note all the same.

robindch

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what is the point of a feedback thread when you ignore the feedback and say the charter is the charter?

Because A+A is a discussion forum where you are expected to discuss things and not simply just disagree with them.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

< In my opinion> which addendum I apparently must add at the end of all my posts from now on.

Much simpler than that - put "I believe that..." in front of things which you are not prepared to back up with evidence. And leave it out from things which you are.

Tacklebox

I had an account here a few years back and used to frequently go into A+A but there was one member in particular who was constantly on a crusade for martyrdom and hell bent on getting as many people banned and infracted as possible. That's if you don't agree with her.

Any interaction I had with her in A+A I always ended up infracted amongst others getting infractions.

They're very Narcissistic and it's member's like her who put me off A+A the moderator's are dead on Dades and Robindch give you a polite warning...
But that member is so cunning at playing the victim she's hell bent on shutting down any opposition.

I reckon if that member was banned from A+A there wouldn't be as many infractions.

So now I steer clear of A+A and sociology type forums as I don't want a ban due to that wan throwing a pitch fork at the wall of a blimp...

Nothing personal to A+A

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

Because A+A is a discussion forum where you are expected to discuss things and not simply just disagree with them.

there has been discussion. Many posters have told you that the process does not work. You have ignored that. A certain poster in particular is laughing at you. They thanked all your moderation posts until you told them to stop.

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That was not, however, what you asked for. Your exact words at the time were

"Anyway, as above, soapboxing is a cardable offence so perhaps somebody could report a few instances of that? "

I gave you 100% exactly what you asked for, purely and solely because you asked for it. And I did it in a methodical easy to follow fashion too which you are more than welcome to repost here as a post if you wish.

I've checked back and the last extensive report I have from you comes from July of last year. That report contained 1,100 words and contained references to the contents perhaps thirty posts and links to none of them. For avoidance of doubt, "a few" refers to perhaps three or four - links which can be clicked on and which paint and clear and unambiguous picture of counter-charter carry-on. A short report can be followed-up quickly and easily. A lengthy report is hard or impossible to pick through without printing everything out and tracing, as above, the interaction of claim and counter claim, deleting the incivility which tends to creep in and any extraneous or irrelevant stuff which leaks into the conversation too.

.......

robindch wrote: »

Because A+A is a discussion forum where you are expected to discuss things and not simply just disagree with them.

Its been discussed endlessly and you have been told by several people that this odd process you want them to engage in doesnt work. Its even been illustrated by Nozz who actually gave you what you asked for only for you to come back and say that that wasnt what you asked for. Again I ask, why not just moderate?

Meanwhile the same poster is delighted that they have yet again managed to shut down a discussion with their oft repeated tactics with no consequence.

robindch

....... wrote: »

Its been discussed endlessly and you have been told by several people that this odd process you want them to engage in doesnt work.

The process works perfectly well once posters make an effort to follow it.

I'm afraid that I don't accept that posters here on A+A are not smart enough to be able to post two links in a single report, with an option on a third link. So the conclusions I must draw is that either a) they are too lazy to, though the activity in this thread suggests this is probably not the problem; or b) they can't.
I don't have a view on which on of these it might be in any given situation.

....... wrote: »

Its even been illustrated by Nozz who actually gave you what you asked for only for you to come back and say that that wasnt what you asked for. Again I ask, why not just moderate?

If nozz is referring to his long report from last July, as above, it's something which is really quite hard to follow.

If somebody has a process which can be adjudicated easily and which requires less than two links (which appears to be the insurmountable barrier to most posters), then by all means, propose it and let's discuss it.

nozzferrahhtoo

robindch wrote: »

contained references to the contents perhaps thirty posts and links to none of them.

My memory is sketchy but as I recall I gave exact post numbers, and since the posts were.... as you said yourself.... often long and rambling I copied out the exact quote from each that was relevant, so you would not have to.

But honestly I simply do not recall the post at this stage. As I said you are welcome to re-post it here as a post if you wish for all to see, or just send it back to me in a Private Message as I do not think I can discuss it further without being reminded of the exact content.

robindch

Tacklebox wrote: »

But that member is so cunning at playing the victim she's hell bent on shutting down any opposition.

Your friendly forum moderators are well-aware of this kind of behaviour - which takes place on both sides of many debates. That's why the forum charter is there in the first place, and specifically, why there's a process in place to deal with troublesome posters as you describe.

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

The process works perfectly well once posters make an effort to follow it.

I'm afraid that I don't accept that posters here on A+A are not smart enough to be able to post two links in a single report, with an option on a third link. So the conclusions I must draw is that either a) they are too lazy to, though the activity in this thread suggests this is probably not the problem; or b) they can't.
I don't have a view on which on of these it might be in any given situation.If nozz is referring to his long report from last July, as above, it's something which is really quite hard to follow.

If somebody has a process which can be adjudicated easily and which requires less than two links (which appears to be the insurmountable barrier to most posters), then by all means, propose it and let's discuss it.

I have a very simple process to propose. I propose that mods in A&A do the job that mods in other, much busier, forums manage to do. The politics forum in particular seems to manage without this process.

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My memory is sketchy but as I recall I gave exact post numbers, and since the posts were.... as you said yourself.... often long and rambling I copied out the exact quote from each that was relevant, so you would not have to.

You gave me post numbers which I have to copy and paste to reconstruct the links. That's really quite difficult and time-consuming on a mobile phone, on the end of which I happened to be for most of last July.